OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CHAPLAINS (SERVICE GRATUITY).

Colonel YATE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that chaplains of the Indian ecclesiastical establishment have been officially in formed that under existing Regulations they are not entitled to a gratuity for service in the field, he will take steps to alter these Regulations so as to permit chaplains receiving War Gratuity according to rank at the same rates as com batant officers under Army Order 85, of 1919, as granted to chaplains on the British establishment?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to a similar question by him on the 16th February. Steps are being taken to expedite a decision.

Colonel YATE: Does that mean that that the chaplains will be given their gratuity?

Mr. FISHER: It means that the matter is under the consideration of the Government of India.

MESOPOTAMIA (ARMY OF OCCUPATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 2.
asked how much of the cost, if any, of the Army of Occupation and the civil administration in Mesopotamia falls directly or in directly upon the Exchequer of India?

Mr. FISHER: No part of the cost of the civil administration of Mesopotamia falls upon the Indian Exchequer. The same is now the case as regards the Army of Occupation. During the War the
ordinary (but not the extraordinary) charges of the troops despatched from. India for service in Mesopotamia and other theatres of war were borne by India revenues under the Parliamentary Resolutions of 16th September and 26th November, 1914. No contribution is now being made by India towards the cost of the troops overseas.

MILITARY AFFAIRS (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY).

Mr. SPOOR: 3.
asked the Secretary for India if he will state how far the Committee or Commission inquiring into Indian military affairs has been able to proceed with that inquiry and how soon the Report will be forthcoming; whether he will state if the deliberations of that body are being carried on under the presidency or acting chairmanship of Sir Michael O'Dwyer, the ex-lieutenant governor of the Punjab, whose administration of that province during the spring of last year came under examination by the Hunter Committee and has been the subject of controversy both here and in India; and, if he is so acting, whether he will consider the advisability of relieving him of that position until his administration of the Punjab, which supplies a considerable percentage of the recruits for the Indian army, has been cleared?

Mr. FISHER: The Committee will shortly complete their inquiries in India, but no estimate can be given of the date when their Report will be issued. Sir Michael O'Dwyer is acting Chairman of the Committee. The Secretary of State sees no reason for relieving him of the position. His administration of the Punjab has no bearing on the matters under discussion by the Committee.

INDUSTRIAL WORERS (WAGES).

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 4.
asked the present rates of wages paid to Indian workers in the principal industries; and whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps to ensure an early approximation of Indian industrial conditions to British standards?

Mr. FISHER: As in several cases increases have recently been granted I have no exact information as to the present rates of wages in the various industries in India, but I will enquire. The settled policy of the Government of India, which has the full approval of my right hon.
Friend, is to improve as rapidly the condition of Indian workers, but in a country like India British standards cannot in all cases be adopted. This, as the hon. Member is aware, is recognised in Article 405 of the Treaty of Peace, which lays down that in framing Draft Conventions and Recommendations for general adoption the International Labour Conference shall suggest modifications to meet the case of those countries in which, to quote the words of the Treaty, "climatic conditions, imperfect development of industrial organisation or other special circumstances make the industrial conditions substantially different."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government of India to retain powers over Labour legislation and to introduce any system of legal minimum wage in India, as has been suggested?

Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the approximation to the British standard will include the compulsory adoption of English standards of clothing, food and housing, and, if so, who will pay for the mutiny which must result?

Mr. FISHER: It is obvious that there must be great differences between economic legislation in India and in England. The differences must be adjusted to the economic circumstances in the two countries. The whole matter of the economic legislation suitable to Indian conditions is under the consideration of the Government of India.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at present there are 60,000 mill workers out in Bombay, striking for higher wages, and may we understand that the cause of these striking mill workers is being supported by Sir George Lloyd and the Government against the employers, with a view to securing a wage more comparable with that paid in other countries?

Mr. HAILWOOD: Under the Government of India Act, are they not capable of dealing with these cases in India?

Mr. FISHER: Sir George Lloyd has already intervened in an important labour
dispute in Bombay, and his intervention has been effective in securing a settlement, and I have no reason to suppose that his intervention in any later disputes will be less successful than in the past.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a dispute on now and that 60,000 men are out in Bombay?

DECREASED SOLDIERS (PENSIONS TO WIDOWS).

Mr. J. DAVISON: 5.
asked the rate of pension paid to the widow of a deceased Indian private soldier; and whether any substantial increase is contemplated in the immediate future?

Mr. FISHER: The rate of pension for the family of a sepoy or sowar is Rs. 5 per mensem or Rs. 4 per mensem, according to the circumstances of his death. The Government of India have been asked to expedite consideration of proposals for increasing these rates.

BURMA RICE TRADE.

Mr. TALBOT: 6.
asked the Secretary for India whether he is now in the position to make a statement respecting the excessive price fixed by the Government of. India for rice exported to Ceylon and certain other British Dominions?

Mr. FISHER: As the reply is somewhat long I propose, with the permission of my hon. Friend, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT:—

The following is the reply referred to:

The object which the Government of India had in view in assuming control over the Burma rice trade was to enable consumers in India and Burma to obtain a staple food at a reasonable price and to supplement the seriously depleted stocks in India. As this necessarily involves a limitation of the profits of producers, the Government of India are under an obligation to obtain a fair market price for the exportable surplus and to restore the profits to the producers. But although the world shortage of rice, caused by the failure of the Siam crop and a short Burma crop, would have enabled exceedingly high prices to have been obtained, the moderate minimum export price of about Rs. 15 per cwt. f.o.b. Rangoon has been fixed against a cost price of Rs. 9 at which India is supplied. This ex-
port price is very considerably less than the world price, which, but for the control, British Possessions would have been compelled to pay. Further—and perhaps more important—practically the whole of the exportable surplus has been reserved for British Possessions. This surplus, unfortunately, is insufficient to meet all demands, but is being distributed as fairly as possible. Had this control not been established it is reasonably certain that the Colonies would not only have been forced to pay a much higher price, but would have been unable to obtain the quantities allotted to them under the scheme.

Last week the Viceroy received a deputation from Ceylon which represented the serious condition of affairs in the island caused by the high price of rice. Lord Chelmsford, while sympathising with the deputation, emphatically repudiated the suggestion that the Government of India were in any way responsible for the rise in the price of rice in the world's markets, and pointed out, as explained above, that the control which had been established enabled Ceylon to obtain her requirements at much below world prices In the matter of allotments also Ceylon had been treated very favourably, as 360,000 tons had been reserved for the Colony. To the complaints of the deputation, that no previous warning had been given, the Viceroy replied that, so long ago as November last, the Ceylon Food Controller knew that the control over exports might be removed, and the Government of Ceylon therefore should have been prepared for a rise in the price of Burma rice to the level of world rices. As regards the claim of the deputation, that Ceylon should be treated as part of India, Lord Chelmsford, while recognising the close historical and geographical connection between the two countries, pointed out that Ceylon was politically and financially independent of India, and could not expect to obtain what would in effect amount to a large subsidy from India by receiving its supplies of rice at less than the price which had been accepted by other Colonies without question. But moved by the appeal on behalf of the general population, and especially the Indian population, and having regard to the fact that Ceylon affords employment for the surplus population of Southern India, which might be forced to return to India in the event of a food shortage in Ceylon, he agreed to
supply 180,000 tons of rice at a flat rate of Rs. 12 per cwt. I feel sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the concession which the Viceroy has found it possible to make—involving as it does a surrender of over £1,250,000 is a substantial one, and I trust that it will serve to relieve the situation in Ceylon.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: Is the reply satisfactory?

Mr. FISHER: It depends upon the point of view from which the reply is regarded.

Mr. MURRAY: Will a reduction be made in the price that is being charged for the rice?

Mr. FISHER: Yes.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (SECRETARY OF STATE'S COMMUNICATION).

Colonel YATE: 7.
asked the Secretary for India whether his attention has been drawn to the misunderstandings that appear to have arisen in Madras regarding the communication sent by the Secretary of State to the Government of India or the Governor of Madras, or both, on the subject of the distribution of seats between Brahmins and non-Brahmins according to the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee; if he has now seen the telegram; and whether he will give the text of the telegraphic private instructions to the Governor of Madras in so far as those instructions relate to the representation of non-Brahmins?

Mr. FISHER: It is clear that the Press telegram from Madras which my hon. and gallant Friend presumably has in mind is inaccurate. I have already stated quite explicitly (in my answer of the 18th February to the hon. Member for Stafford) the terms of the message which my right hon. Friend sent to the Governor of Madras, and the very unusual step of publishing the actual text would not afford any further information on the point. The question at issue between Brahmins and non-Brahmins in Madras is, I understand, now under arbitration.

Col. YATE: If the publication of the text of the telegram would not afford any information, what objection is there to publishing it?

Mr. FISHER: It is not usual to publish a telegram.

Sir J. D. REES: Has not Lord Meston, who has been appointed arbitrator, succeeded in effecting a settlement of the question?

Mr. FISHER: Lord Meston has been appointed arbitrator, but I have not received official information as to a settlement.

FILMS (CENSORSHIP).

Col. YATE: 8.
asked the Secretary for India if he will inquire whether the Acts of 1918 and 1919 enabling the Government of India to institute arrangements for the examination and certification of films have yet been put in force; if so, how many of these films have been censored, and with what results?

Mr. FISHER: The Secretary of State is making the enquiry suggested.

CHILD LABOUR (COTTON MILLS).

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 9.
asked the Secretary for India whether he can take steps to secure the abolition of the employment of child labour in the cotton mills and industrial concerns of India?

Mr. FISHER: The International Labour Conference which met at Washington in November last adopted a Draft Convention regarding the minimum age of employment of children, and the Convention contained a special article relating to India. The Government of India will now be required, under Article 405 of the Treaty of Peace, to bring the matter before the competent authority for decision whether the draft Convention can be ratified or not.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no one in an Indian house to look after the children unless they accompany their parents to their work. And will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there shall be no forcing of utterly inappropriate standards upon an unfortunate people.

INDENTURED LABOUR (FIJI).

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether a deputation of Fiji planters is at present in India; whether this deputation is demanding the continuance of indentured labour in Fiji; and whether His Majesty's Government and the Government of India will make a public denial that there is
any intention of supplying indentured labour to Fiji, in view of the recent unrest there?

Mr. FISHER: The unofficial Fiji Mission now in India is certainly not asking for a renewal of indentured labour, which is quite well understood to have been finally stopped. The recent unrest in Fiji occurred after the cancellation of all remaining indentures.

Mr. WILLIAM CARTER: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India, if he will state how many Indians have left India during the last 10 years under indenture; and how many are at present under in denture, and in what localities.

Mr. FISHER: In the last 10years, 61,401 Indians have left India under indenture but none have gone since 1917. I gave the hon. and gallant Member for Gateshead, on the 24th February, the latest figures as to the number still under indenture in the several colonies.

STRIKES.

Mr. LUNN: 12.
asked how many strikes have occurred in India since the beginning of this year; in how many cases were troops called out; on how many occasions have there been conflicts between the strikers and the military in which the military fired on the crowd; and what has been the total number of casualties resulting among the Indian population?

Mr. FISHER: Information available at the India Office shows that since the beginning of the year, in addition to the widespread strikes in the Bombay Presidency, which affected the cotton mills and other industries, strikes occurred in the Jamalpur railway workshops, at four Calcutta jute mills, and at Cawnpur. No official information has yet been received regarding the more recent strike at Jamshedpur. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on the 25th February and the 3rd March to questions asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Member for Barnard Castle.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the economic conditions of the Indians would be very much better if they were not compelled to carry on their backs some of the tribe of Civil Servants?

Mr. LUNN: 13.
asked how many iron and steel workers are at present on strike in Jamshedpur district; and whether an attempt is being made to give the strikers' claims a fair hearing and to arbitrate the strike on British lines, in view of the regrettable occurrences at Sholapur and elsewhere?

Mr. FISHER: I have received no report from the Government of India regarding the strike.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain a report on this strike from the Government of India?

ISLAMIC DELEGATION.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian caliphate or Islamic delegation at present visiting this country is led by a certain Mohammed Ali; whether this Mohammed Ali is the same individual who, on account of his revolutionary tendencies and his intimate association with the Committee of Union and Progress, was interned on his own responsibility by His Highness the Nawab of Rampur and who was subsequently interned by the Indian Government, together with his brother Shaukat Ali, who had earned a similar reputation at the university of Alighur; whether the inclusion of a man of such revolutionary tendencies on this Islamic delegation is approved by the Government of India; and whether he will consider the possible prejudice to the cause of the millions of loyal Islamic subjects of the Crown of the inclusion of an avowed revolutionary on a mission of this kind?

Mr. FISHER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part the loader of the delegation is the same individual who was interned by the Government of India. With regard to the third and fourth parts of the question, the Government of India had no hand in selecting the personnel of the delegation. I can accept no responsibility on this point.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it a fact that members of the delegation have been officially received by representatives of the Indian Government in this country; does not such reception constitute an act of approval of the constitution of the delegation; and is it a fact that the
Government of India, quite properly, had no hand in selecting the personnel of the delegation?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should hand in his question at the Table.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a visit of a committee of this kind is of the utmost advantage to the relations between ourselves and the Mahomedans in India; and is he also aware that it can only be of advantage to this Empire for men like Mohammed Ali to come here?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must follow the example of the hon. and gallant Member and hand in his question.

PASSENGER ACCOMMODATION.

Mr. GILBERT: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the custom of his Department to reserve a certain number of berths on all passenger steamers leaving this country for India; and, if so, will he state what is the average number of such berths reserved; and whether, in the event of the same not being required by his Department, such berths are released in time for the use of the travelling public from whom there is a demand for passages at present?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is difficult, in view of the difference in the size and class of the ships, to give any average number, but from 15 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the accommodation available in liners is reserved. In the unusual event of any berth not being registered for a Government passenger, it is immediately released to the shipping company.

BRITISH ARMY (MARRIED OFFICERS' PAY).

Major Earl WINTERTON: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the pay and allowances to married officers of the British Army in India correspond, allowing for the difference in the cost of living, to the increased pay and allowances given to married officers of the British Army serving in Home stations?

Mr. FISHER: The present rates of pay for officers of the British Army in India, which are provisional only, are the same for single and for married officers. But the Government of India have undertaken to consider the question of giving different rates to married and single officers when a permanent scale of pay is fixed.

Earl W1NTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point in the question as to whether the pay and allowances to married officers correspond to the increased pay and allowances to married officers serving in this country?

Mr. FISHER: I rather think they do, but I will look into it.

Earl WINTERTON: That is the point of my question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OFFICERS' PAY.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the withdrawal of the special exemption with regard to Income Tax, the pay of naval officers is now on a proper basis having regard to Recommendation No. 3 of the Halsey Report?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The Board of Admiralty in reviewing the Report of the Halsey Committee considered that the rates of pay recommended, after being subjected to to the higher tax, would be on a proper basis. This decision must be accepted, though it is realised that the increases of pay will be discounted to an appreciable extent thereby.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision takes on an average from £00 to £100 off the naval officer's pay, that, he does not get the army officer's allowance, and that naval officers with children to educate are placed in a serious position?

Mr. LONG: I quite appreciate that in certain cases there is a great deal of hardship, but there is a certain amount of misapprehension as to the position. The increase in the case of the naval officer is an increase in his pay. The army officer has an allowance. The one is of a permanent and the other is of
a temporary character. The naval officer is not so much to the bad as my Noble Friend thinks in reference to that branch of the subject, but if he will be good enough to send me any cases showing what the disadvantages are, I will undertake to look very carefully into them.

WELFARE COMMITTEE.

Viscount CURZON: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can yet make any statement as to whether the Report of the first, Welfare Committee and the Admiralty decisions thereon can be made available to Members of Parliament?

Mr. LONG: It is not proposed to depart from the usual Admiralty practice, which is to treat Reports of Admiralty Committees on Service matters as solely for the information of the Board of Admiralty. Full information as to the request put forward through the Welfare Committee, and the Admiralty decisions thereon, will, of course, he promulgated to the fleet. I may add that the Report of the Welfare Committee was presented to the Admiralty on the 3rd of March: and that, as it contains a very large number of requests which require consideration, it will be some time before decisions can be promulgated.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the great importance of this important departure, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of laying this Report before the House?

Mr. LONG: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member means by this new departure—whether he means the Welfare Committee. I presume what he wants is that the Welfare Committee should succeed. I think that their success would be gravely prejudiced by publishing their Report. It would be far better in the interests of the lower deck that these considerations should be regarded as questions put by them in the most friendly way to the Board of Admiralty, and to be considered by them in the same way, but it would be very undesirable to publish them.

BLACK SEA (ATTACKS ON BRITISH SHIPS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 20.
asked whether H.M.S. "Steadfast" was recently fired upon in the Black Sea; if so, whether she suffered casualties or
damage; who fired upon her; what service she was engaged upon at the time; and whether any other of His Majesty's ships have been fired upon since the capture of Odessa?

Mr. LONG: While returning to Novorossisk, after conveying General Cotton to Tuapse, H.M.S. "Steadfast" was fired upon from the latter place by Green Guards, and was hit by a 60-pounder shell and machine-gun bullets. No details as to casualties or damage sustained have yet been received. The reply to the last part of the: question is in the negative.

FAR EASTERN PORTS (COMMERCE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 21.
asked what British men-of-war are at present at Vladivostock or other Far Eastern ports: whether they have orders with respect to commerce to Vladivostock and other ports now in the hands of the Russian revolutionaries; and, if so, what are these orders?

Mr. LONG: H.M.S. "Carlisle" is at Vladivostock for the purpose of protecting British interests: there are no British men-of-war at other Russian ports in the Far East. "Carlisle" has been instructed as necessary to give effect to the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to trade with Russia.

H.M.S. "GLOWWORM."

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any particulars concerning the sinking of H.M.S. "Glowworm" at Meleberreznik, on the Dvina River; whether her destruction was caused by an explosion; whether she was at the time moored alongside a military lighter; whether there were on board approximately 90 ratings under confinement on account of their pro-Bolshevik sympathies; and how many officers, if any, were also lost in the explosion?

Mr. LONG: His Majesty's Ship "Glowworm "was not sunk, nor was she destroyed by the explosion referred to. She was proceeding alongside a barge which was on fire, in order to assist in extinguishing it, when the barge blew up, the commanding officer of the "Glowworm" being unaware that it contained ammunition. There is not a word of truth in the story as regards the 90 ratings
under confinement. The following were killed or died of wounds caused by the explosion:—

The Commanding Officer (Commander S. W. B. Green, D.S.O., R.N.),
Four British officers,
Two Russian officers,
Seventeen men;
and two officers and 13 men were injured.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL FUNDS.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 23.
asked whether, under the Order in Council of 10th August, 1888, the proportion of freight falling due to Greenwich Hospital funds was one quarter of the whole sum paid as freight; whether in the case of freight paid since the Order in Council of 26th October, 1914, this proportion would have brought £438,285, or thereabouts, to Greenwich Hospital funds; and whether, having regard to the possibility of increasing pensions both to officers and men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines had such a sum been paid to those funds, he will say whether the £15,000 only which has actually been contributed to Greenwich Hospital funds should be augmented by at least a further £400,000?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. But by the annulment of the Older in Council in question, the arrangement under which Greenwich Hospital funds received one-quarter of the sum paid for the conveyance of private treasury in H.M. Ships automatically ceased. In view, however, of the fact that a source of revenue which had existed for many years was thus terminated, it was agreed to make a grant of £15,500 out of a total sum of £30,963 4s. 6d. received as freight and insurance on a shipment of gold early in 1915, on the understanding that no further sums would in future accrue to Greenwich Hospital from the conveyance of treasure. I may add that the amount thus paid to Greenwich Hospital was more than the equivalent of the receipts of Greenwich Hospital from this source during the preceding fifty years. Perhaps I might say, regarding the answer given on Wednesday last, that the amount received by the Admiralty was for insurance and freight, the greater portion being for insurance, and that Greenwich Hospital was at no time entitled to share in the receipts for insurance.

FREIGHT (APPROPRIATION).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty under what authority freight amounting to £1, 738,150 has been taken in charge and used as an Appropriation in Aid of Navy Votes (Vote 11 zz.); and to what specific purposes under Vote 11 this sum has been applied?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The amount received by the Admiralty represented a payment for services rendered in the conveyance of private treasure by H.M. Ships, and was accordingly correctly appropriated as a receipt in aid of the expense incurred by the Admiralty in carrying out the service. It would be impossible to allocate such a receipt proportionately to the various Navy Votes which contributed to the expenditure, and, as a matter of convenience, the whole amount was appropriated to the Miscellaneous Vote.

TREASURE (SAFE CONVEYANCE).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any legal liability still attaches to officers commanding any of His Majesty's ships which carry treasure on which freight is paid should such treasure or part of it be lost while in their charge?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The responsibility for the safe conveyance of the treasure, which under the Order in Council of 10th August, 1888, rested with the captain of the ship, now rests in the Admiralty. To the extent, however, that for any loss which might have been contributed to by negligence on the part of the commanding officer he would be liable to be dealt with under the King's Regulations for neglect of duty.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (MERCHANT SHIPPING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any further decisions have been come to with a view to utilising the Royal dockyards and naval harbours to relieve the congestion at other ports and to build merchant shipping: and, if so, what are these decisions?

Mr. LONG: I hope to deal with this matter in my statement upon the Navy Estimates.

WAR MEDALS.

Viscount CURZON: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers and men of the Royal Navy, Royal
Marines, Royal Naval Reserve, and Royal Naval Division who have been mentioned in despatches during the War are to be entitled to wear a bronze oak leaf on the ribbon of the War Medal?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I presume my Noble Friend refers to the Victory Medal. As regards the Royal Naval Division, my Noble Friend is probably aware that they come under the War Office as regards medals. In the case of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and Royal Naval Reserve, it has been decided, as the conditions in the Naval Service do not assimilate to those of the Army, not to issue this emblem.

PRIZE BOUNTY MONEY.

Mr. HAYDAY: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when Naval prize bounty money is to be distributed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards prize bounty, the old practice is followed. An award is made from the National Exchequer in each case in which an enemy ship of war has been sunk or captured. Each case is brought before the Prize Court, and payment is made immediately after a decision is given in each definite case, in accordance with the scale set forth in Order in Council, 27th April, 1918. Awards have in this way been made already in 93 cases, the total amount of money actually distributed being £68,500. There are, of course, certain cases still undecided by the Courts, but the procedure in these cases will be as I have described. If my hon. Friend refers in his question, as I imagine he does, to the distribution of prize money, I would refer him to the answer given on this subject on 3rd March, copy of which I am sending him.

ADMIRALTY HOUSES, STOCKTON-ON-TEES.

Captain WATSON: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that for many months past certain Admiralty houses in Eton Road, Stockton-on-Tees, have been unoccupied, causing deep resentment and indignation amongst those requiring houses; whether he is aware that more than a year ago the Admiralty informed the town clerk of Stockton by letter that the premises would probably be required at an early date and refused the town council's request that the property should be let; and whether
and for how long the Admiralty intends to keep the property unoccupied having regard to the urgent public demand for houses?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is true that certain of the Admiralty houses in question were not occupied during recent months, but they had been allocated to Coast Guard ranks and ratings, whose furniture in all cases but two was actually in the houses. For this reason the houses were not available for letting. As regards the second part of the question, I am advised that shortly after the letter to the town clerk in February, 1919, all the houses in question were allocated in the circumstances already mentioned. I would add that Stockton Wireless Station is about to be re-opened, and all houses will not only be occupied, but the number of houses will not be sufficient for our requirements.

Captain WATSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the houses are to be occupied immediately, and, if not, will the Admiralty consider letting them on weekly tenacies, the tenants undertaking in writing to vacate at short notice?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Of course, I sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend in putting that question. Our difficulty is that, even if we let the houses on weekly tenancies, we cannot get the people out of them. I will give the assurance that, if these houses are not forthwith required for the wireless station, what he suggests, that they should be let to weekly tenants, the tenants giving an undertaking in writing to vacate at short notice, will be considered.

Mr. HAILWOOD: May I ask whether an undertaking in writing will set aside the law?

OFFICERS' PAY AND PENSIONS.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 31.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to give pay plus pension to officers promoted from the ranks of the Royal Navy for the period of their War service; and if he can justify the grant of pay plus pension to the lower deck while the same is denied to the officer who has risen therefrom?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the policy is to treat officers promoted from the lower deck on
the same lines as officers entered as such, and no reason is seen for departing from this policy.

Sir B. FALLE: Does my right hon. Friend absolutely shut the door?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend desires a differentiation between officers promoted from the lower deck and officers entered as such. I think I may say that officers promoted from the lower deck would not wish that; they would wish all to be treated alike.

Sir B. FALLE: Does my right hon. Friend absolutely shut the door to all officers of the Royal Navy?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not the question asked.

SCHOOLMASTER BRANCH.

Sir B. FALLE: 33.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that a number of dockyard apprentices have been induced to apply for the post of schoolmaster, Royal Navy; if he is aware that, if two shipwright apprentices join the Royal Navy at the same time, the one as a shipwright chief petty officer and the other as a schoolmaster candidate, acting warrant officer, then at 28 years of age the former, being promoted shipwright warrant officer, will draw 15s. per day while the schoolmaster will draw 11s. 6d. per day, and that 10 years later the shipwright will draw 20s. per day and the schoolmaster 14s., with corresponding pensions; and if, seeing that this scale of pay is not likely to attract the best men to the schoolmaster branch and that the schoolmaster branch is of as great importance as any other, he will try to remedy this state of affairs?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The rates of pay of the schoolmaster branch are at present under consideration.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. T. A. LEWIS: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the number of ex-service men at present unemployed; and whether he can give an estimate of the number of skilled workmen among them?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): 289,139 ex-service men were
claiming out-of-work donation at 27th February, of whom 38 per cent. were registered under skilled occupations.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour to state the number of discharged sailors and soldiers that have been trained under the scheme for hand-sewn boot and shoe making; the number for boot and shoe repairing; the number still under training and their previous occupation; the number that have been trained under the scheme for boot and shoe manufacturing; and the number at present under training with their previous occupations?

Sir R. HORNE: Up to date approximately 2,000 men have been trained in the boot and shoe trade, of whom about 45 per cent. have been trained in hand-sewn boot and shoe making, and the remainder in boot and shoe repairing. The number trained in boot and shoe manufacture is negligible. There are at present about 1,800 men in training for these trades, of whom at least 80 per cent. are being trained in hand-sewn boot and shoe making. I regret that I have no information as to the previous occupations of the trainees referred to, which are very varied.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many have found employment?

Sir R. HORNE: After training?

Mr. SHORT: Yes.

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I cannot tell that. I may be able to discover it, but I have not the information at hand at the moment.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is not the prosperity of the boot trade able to absorb a far larger number of men than are available?

Sir R. HORNE: I should not like any reflection to be made on the assistance we have got in the boot and shoo trade. I am sure they are doing very well.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the boot and shoe operatives have helped these ex-soldiers in every particular, and that no objection has been raised?

Sir R. HORNE: They certainly have given us every help.

Commander Sir E. NICHOLL: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men are now unemployed; and what percentage of these have been unemployed for the following periods: less than four weeks; over four weeks and less than three months: over three months and less than six months; over six months and less than 12 months; over 12 months?

Sir R. HORNE: As this is a very long and detailed answer containing many figures, I hope the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following in the Statement referred to:—

The number of ex-service men claiming out-of-work donation at 27th February, the latest date for which figures are available, was 289,139, of whom 256,961 were claiming under the original scheme and 32,178 under the Special Extension Scheme granted to those who had exhausted their right to benefit under the original scheme. No information is available as to the total number of days of unemployment of those claiming under the Special Extension Scheme, but the following table shows the length of unemployment for which donation had been paid in the case of 256,961 claiming under the original scheme:—

Number claiming in week ending 27th February.

Duration for which payment has been made.


14,040
…
No payment yet made.


99,951
…
From 1 to 60 days.


87,184
…
From 61 to 120 days.


25,644
…
From 121 to 156 days.


15,544
…
From 157 to 198 days.


9,932
…
From 199 to 234 days.


3,507
…
From 235 to 275 days.


.1,159
…
276 days.

It should be understood that the duration represents the total number of days for which out-of-work donation has been paid to the policy holder since his policy was issued. It does not necessarily imply continuous unemployment, but may cover recurring periods of unemployment.

CHILD LABOUR.

Mr. SHORT: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the decision of the International Labour Conference recently held at Washington upon the employment of child labour?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): My tight hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Conference adopted a draft convention which provides that children under 14 shall not be employed in any industrial undertaking, other than undertakings in which only members of the same family are employed. Special provisions were inserted in regard to the application of the convention to India and Japan.

APEX STAMPING COMPANY, FLEETWOOD.

Mr. SITCH: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Apex Stamping Company, Limited, of Fleetwood, having failed to carry out an arbitration award, dated 20th November, 1919, and having been successfully prosecuted for non-compliance with the order, dismissed forthwith a large number of women trade unionists and filled the vacancies so created with non-union women; that the resentment aroused by this action in the local trade union movement is such as to threaten a general stoppage of work similar to that of last September: and whether steps will be taken by the Department to impress effectively upon the firm the disastrous effect of this policy of hostility to trade unionism?

Sir R. HORNE: I understand that this case is still sub judice. My Department has for some time been endeavouring to compose the difference in this case; but as the hon. Member will be aware, I possess no legal powers to enable me to take effective steps of the kind indicated.

HOTEL EMPLOYES.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the conditions under which the office staff and many servants live and work in certain large hotels is onerous, exacting, and injurious to health; that it is impossible for many of them to take concerted action for better wages and improved living conditions; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Departmental Committee to inquire into the question of the conditions of employment of the nondescript workers in such establishments and to report?

Sir R. HORNE: I proposed to apply the Trade Boards Acts to the catering trade, including hotels, at an early date, in order that the conditions of the various classes of workers employed may be effectively regulated. In these circumstances, I think that it is unnecessary to appoint such a Committee as my hon. Friend suggests.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that answer apply to hotels in Government occupation?

Sir R. HORNE: Surely that is rather a ridiculous question.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Mr. DEVLIN: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the representations that have been made to him by Irish representatives, he will have the benefits promised under the Unemployment Insurance Hill to workers in Great Britain extended to the workers of Ireland?

Sir R. HORNE: I hope to be in a position to give a definite answer on this matter by the time the Bill next comes before Standing Committee C on Tuesday, March 16th. At the present time consideration is being given to the adjustments, financial and otherwise, which would be involved in giving effect to my hon. Friend's representation.

Mr. DEVLIN: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is considering this matter sympathetically?

Sir R. HORNE: I am doing everything I possibly can to make it effective.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am sure you are.

TRADE UNION BALLOTS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour whether Clause 4, Sub-section (1) of the Trade Union Act, 1913, which enjoins the Registrar of Friendly Societies not to approve of the ballot rules of a trade union unless he is satisfied that every member has an equal right and, if reasonably possible, a fair opportunity of voting, and that the secrecy of the ballot is properly secured, is applicable to all subjects on which ballots are held; what steps the Registrar
takes to satisfy himself that ballots are so conducted; and whether he is aware that ballots are conducted in circumstances in which intimidation takes place and there is no secrecy whatsoever?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The Section only applies to a ballot taken for the purpose of enabling a trade union to apply its funds to political objects as denned by the Act, and it is the duty of the Registrar to see that the union's rules provide for the matters referred to in the question. This has been effected by the preparation of sets of model rules, which have been adopted by the unions in every case. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not aware of any case of a ballot within his jurisdiction where there has been intimidation or any absence of secrecy.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will my right hon. Friend state what means the Registrar possesses for satisfying himself that these rules are carried out?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is his duty to see that they are, and he does it.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the regulations of some trade unions make a provision for sending ballot papers to the men's homes, and that councils can cancel certificates, and that the Registrar has got no power over them at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LAND ACQUIRED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if he will issue a Return to date, and continue to do so monthly or quarterly, of all cases where land acquired by local authorities for housing purposes under the 1919 Acts has, by means of the assistance of the Land Valuation Department, been purchased at a price 25 per cent. or more cheaper than that originally demanded; will he show in each case the price originally asked, price recommended by local authority, purchase price sanctioned by the Ministry, name of local authority, and name of owner of land; and will he give the grand totals of cost in the case of all land purchased to date and in the future with the assistance of the Land Valuation Department?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have consulted the Board of Inland Revenue and I am advised that the publication of the details suggested would be undesirable and might prejudicially affect future negotiations for the purchase of land. On the other hand, periodical statements as to the total cost of the land purchased and showing the average saving which has been affected by means of these negotiations have been and will continue to be issued.

STORING FURNITURE.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to cases where dwelling-houses which are fit for occupation have been kept unoccupied either for the purpose, of storing furniture or to obtain a higher sale price; and whether he will introduce legislation to enable local authorities to compel their immediate usage as dwelling-houses.

Dr. ADDISON: According to my information the number of cases of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend is small, and, as I stated in my reply of the 26th February, I think that the powers of the two Acts of 1919, if firmly administered, enable local authorities to deal with such cases. It does not appear that, in the cases of dwelling houses left empty, local authorities have any power other than that of acquisition, and in suitable cases I am recommending them to take this course.

BUILDING TRADE (UNSKILLED WORKERS REQUIRED).

Mr. T. A. LEWIS: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give an approximate estimate of the number of unskilled men required in the building trade at the presen moment?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not in a position to give an estimate as to the number of unskilled workers required in the building trade as a whole. As regards the erection of working-class houses, assuming that 200,000 houses are built per year, I estimate that the total number of unskilled workers required is approximately 172,500. At the present time the shortage is of skilled workers. We were, for instance, in the week ending February 28th, short of 2,149 skilled workers on houses now under construction.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state a single case where the building of either factory, workshop, or ordinary house is stopped for want of unskilled labour; and is it not a fact that if you are in a position to get skilled labour, it is very easy to get unskilled labour?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, my information confirms that. We are not held up by lack of unskilled labour; it is skilled labour we are short of.

Mr. J. F. GREEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any reply from the authorities of the Trade Union Congress to the suggestion that I understood he made that he should address the Congress on this subject?

Dr. ADDISON: I regret to say that the authorities of the Trade Union Congress have not yet fixed a date for me to see them.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of skilled bricklayers, having migrated to other trades, are remaining in those trades; and is the Ministry intending to take any steps to bring them back to their original occupation?

Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend questions the accuracy of that statement, but we have been exploring all possible means of improving the situation with the best good will for a long time past, and I am looking to the skilled trades concerned to give some real help in the matter.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any skilled men still in the Army; and, if so, has he made representations to the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

UNOCCUPIED LAND AND HOUSES (LOCAL RATES).

Mr. LAWSON: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce a Bill authorising local authorities to levy rates on unoccupied land and houses?

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot undertake to introduce such a Bill at the present time.

TENDERS FOR HOUSES.

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: 61
asked the Minister of Health (1) how many houses have been built or commenced under the Government housing scheme;
(2) for how many houses tenders had been approved on the 1st November last, and how many additional tenders have been approved each month since that date?

Dr. ADDISON: I have not the detailed information as to the progress made during February on the 26,186 houses of which the tenders had been approved by the end of January. I have only information, up to the present, as to stages of the work on 9,354 houses, with a record of the completion of 777 houses and flats. The number of house tenders approved by my Department up to the 1st November, 1919, was 8,646. The number of tenders approved during November last was 3,022, during December 7,507, during January 7,011, and during February 33,518, making the total number of tenders approved at the end of February 59,704.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the 26,000 he spoke of as having been tendered for by the end of January were all commenced in February?

Dr. ADDISON: I have not got the details as to every individual case. I am augmenting the staff very greatly, but it means a very large staff to keep in contact with every individual house. I will do my best.

TENANTS (EJECTION).

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Rent Amendment Act, 1919, deals with the question of ejectment, but under Section 2, Sub-section 1, it states that the Act shall remain in force until the 1st day of July, 1920; and if he will state whether the security of tenure under the Rent Acts, 1915 to 1919, ceases to be operative from the above date; and, if so, he will state what the intention of the Government is on this matter?

Dr. ADDISON: As I have already stated, a Committee is now sitting to consider the question of an extension of the Acts, and I hope to be in a position to make an interim statement next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

UNSOUND MEAT (LONDON MARKET).

Mr. DOYLE: 44.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the complaints of the Metropolitan retail butchers, as well as the public, to the inferior and, in many cases, bad meat which is being placed on the London market; and if he will institute a short inquiry into the causes, with a view to remedying the evil and punishing the offenders?

Dr. ADDISON: Local authorities have full powers for dealing with any meat which is found to be diseased, unsound, unwholesome, or unfit for the food of man. The information at my disposal as a result of inquiries recently instituted does not point to the existence of any considerable amount of meat on the London market coming within this description. If my hon. Friend has any cases in mind and will send me particulars, I will inquire into them.

EGYPTIAN CEREALS.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 68.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for, Foreign Affairs whether he has received information to the effect that owing to the inflated prices derived from cotton, which at a conservative estimate have recently given a net profit exceeding £120 per acre, the cultivators in Egypt have ploughed up large areas of land already sown with cereals in order that they may plant cotton instead; whether he is aware that this action on the part of the cultivators is certain to add very largely to the cost of food in Egypt owing to the necessity of purchasing imported cereals; whether it is also realised that the action of the Egyptian cultivators will increase the shortage of cereals elsewhere; and whether the Government has taken, or proposes to take, any action in the matter?

The ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): His Majesty's Government have no official information on the subject, but have reason to believe that some isolated cases have occurred when standing crops of cereals have been ploughed up in order to plant cotton. It must be remembered that the price of cereals is very high, and unless the crop had been almost a complete failure,
the cultivators would hesitate to plough it up in view of the approaching harvest which will commence next month. The Egyptian Government are fully alive to the importance of conserving the home supply of cereals and may be trusted effectively to check the practice referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

HUNGARY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a number of former ministers of the late Soviet Government in Hungary are being tried on charges of murder and forgery by the present Hungarian Government; that every member of the former Soviet Government is charged with murder in 200 cases, which is the number of persons said to have been killed or executed under the Soviet Government: that they are charged with forgery for printing paper money; that some of these Ministers only held purely technical and scientific posts and had no say in general policy; and whether His Majesty's Government will take any steps to save the lives of these men?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have no information concerning the alleged particulars, but I have asked His Majesty's High Commissioner at Budapest for a report.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In connection with this inquiry can it be made clear to Admiral Horthy that we do not question his integrity in the matter, but that it is M. Friedrichs who is the danger point so far as the Hungarian White terror is concerned?

Captain REDMOND: May I ask when the hon. and gallant Gentleman took the office of Prime Minister

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not propose to answer the second question. The hon. and gallant Member knows the custom of this Front Bench. With reference to the supplementary question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) having asked the High Commissioner for a Report, it is not possible to tell him what to say and how to say it.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it not clear that this question is one for the Foreign Secretary and not for the Prime Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN STEAMERS.

Mr. HOUSTON: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether Great Britain and her Allies have demanded from Holland delivery of the German steamers which Dutch nationals have ostensibly purchased from German owners and which, in defiance of the terms of the Peace Treaty, have been taken to Dutch ports, notably the "Limburgia"; and, if so, what reply has been received from Holland?

Colonel WILSON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on February 25th to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Chester.

Sir F. FLANNERY: is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this transaction is regarded as a colourable evasion of the undertaking of Germany to give this tonnage to the disposal and service of the Allies?

Colonel WILSON: No, Sir; and as my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, this question was decided by the Supreme Council at a later date, and till the ratification of the Treaty the question of the taking over of those vessels is a matter for the Reparation Committee. As I stated in a former reply, that Committee is in communication with the German Government on the subject.

EARLY CLOSING BILL.

Mr. CHADWICK: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether facilities will be given for passing into Law this Session the Early Closing Bill, and what procedure will be followed if the measure is not placed on the Statute Book before August, when the present Regulations cease?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Bill is down for Second Reading on Friday, the 18th, and until the Debate has taken place I am not prepared to make any statement on the subject.

CONSTANTINOPLE.

Sir W. DAVISON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of its being finally decided to leave the Turks in possession of Constantinople, it is
intended to leave any portion of European territory in Turkish control apart from the city of Constantinople itself; and, if so, what is the extent of the territory intended to be left in Turkish control?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As the Treaty with Turkey is at present under discussion, it would be inadvisable to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

ANTI-JEWISH EXCESSES (ALLEGED).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information regarding the recent anti-Jewish excesses by Mohamedans in Palestine, particularly in the Jewish colony of Metulah, in Galilee: and whether any special instructions have been sent to the Commander-in-Chief in Palestine to put a stop to these excesses and to prevent further anti-Jewish demonstrations as likely to lead to crime?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The War Office has no information of such excesses and it is not considered likely that any have taken place, or they would have been reported by the General Officer Commanding. If the hon. Member will be good enough to give details regarding dates, etc., inquiries will be made. No special instructions have been sent to the General Officer Commanding, Palestine, nor are any considered necessary, as the Commander-in-Chief is fully aware of His Majesty's Government's policy in regard to Palestine.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: May we have a statement of the Government's policy with regard to Palestine?

PRINCE OF WALES' FUND.

Mr. D. HERBERT: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are in a position to make the Prince of Wales' Fund available for assisting cases of extreme necessity among pre-War State pensioners generally or among naval and military pre-War pensioners?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not responsible for the National Relief Fund, the administration of which is
vested in an Executive Committee. The Fund was subscribed expressly for the relief of distress directly due to the War, and I understand that the Committee have always taken the view that it is not within their province to attempt to relieve distress which results from the depreciation of currency and the rise in the cost of living, a disability which pre-War pensioners share with many other persons with small fixed incomes.

KURDESTAN.

Mr. LAWSON: 52.
asked the Prime Minister with regard to the settlement of Kurdestan and Upper Mesopotamia, whether the creation of an independent Kurdestan is under consideration; whether it will include all the Kurdish tribes assigned under previous agreements to the French and British zones; and whether the interests both of the Kurds and of the various sects of Assyrian Christians will be safeguarded?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The whole question of the future of Kurdestan is at present being considered by the Peace Conference, who fully realise the necessity for safeguarding the interests both of the Kurds and of the various sects of the Assyrian Christians.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When may we have a statement of policy with regard to Mesopotamia in this House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the House has been informed, so far as the Government are concerned, that it is not advisable to give any statement or details until the Treaty as a whole can be submitted.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Kurds have now any representative either in Paris or in this country who is recognised as speaking for the Kurds at present?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of Kurdestan is one of those which are most deeply absorbing the attention of the Allied representatives.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When do the Allies expect to come to a decision?

COST OF LIVING.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 53.
asked the Prime Minister, seeing that a very large section of the community who have reaped little or no advantage in the way of improved wages and increased incomes are suffering severely because of the constantly rising prices and are becoming restive and impatient through the failure of the Profiteering Act to cope with the evil, if he can give some indication when the Supreme Council will publicly announce the details of the remedy by means of which they propose to bring prices down?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As my hon. and gallant Friend will have observed, a communication on this subject appeared in the Press this morning.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

MINES (STATE OWNERSHIP).

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great interest now being taken in the proposal to nationalise the coal mines and the necessity of furnishing the public with the latest and most accurate information, and also in view of the Report of the Sankey Commission, he will issue a White Paper showing the countries where State ownership is now in operation and how long it has been so; the rates of wages, hours of labour, and cost of coal to the public in such countries; the latest available information concerning the German State-owned mines; and if the individual miner enjoys as much liberty under such a system as he does in the case of privately-owned mines or the public derive as much benefit?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, with a view to furnishing the information as to the facts to which he refers so far as they can be ascertained.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also publish in the White Paper the fact that the Government have granted twenty-six millions per year to the coalowners as against a pre-war
profit of thirteen millions, and have also relieved them of the cost of the Coal Control Department to the extent of £750,000?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not promised to lay any White Paper. I have promised to consider it, and if we do, it will contain facts only and not opinions. I may say in my judgment the statement which the hon. Member has just made is an opinion, and very much the reverse of the fact.

VENEREAL DISEASE.

Mr. J. DAVISON: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has arranged for the keeping of records regarding the treatment centres for venereal diseases established partly or wholly at the public expense: whether he can state the number of cases that have been dealt with for the first time at such centres; and what has been the expenditure in connection with such centres from national and local funds, respectively, for each year since their establishment?

Dr. ADDISON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The number of cases dealt with for the first time at these centres between the 1st of January, 1917, when the first treatment centres were opened, and the 31st December, 1919, is approximately 175,000. The approximate expenditure of local authorities on their schemes for the diagnosis and treatment of venereal diseases during the years ended the 31st March, 1917, 1918, and 1919, amounted to £18,000, £116,000 and £216,000 respectively. The estimated expenditure during the current financial year is £314,000. Of this expenditure 75 per cent. is borne by national funds and 25 per cent. by local funds.

OUTDOOR RELIEF.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that some boards of guardians, in administering out-door relief, are giving to aged and infirm people considerably less than that given in old ago pensions, and to widows and children less than is given to the widows and children of deceased soldiers; and whether, in view of the fact that relief when given should
be adequate, what action, if any, he proposes to take to have the order of the Ministry observed?

Dr. ADDISON: The question of the amount of relief required in a particular case is one to be determined by the guardians dealing with the application, on whom Parliament has placed the responsibility; I have no authority to make any order or regulation dealing with this matter.

Mr. RICHARDSON: As the order of the Board is that relief, when granted, should be adequate, would the right hon. Gentleman urge on Boards to increase the relief to equal that given to old-age pensioners and widows and children of deceased soldiers?

Dr. ADDISON: We state that relief must be adequate, but it is impossible to say as to the details of any particular case unless the details are before you. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

POOR LAW INFIRMARIES.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether the legislation necessary before he can decide the future utilisation of Poor Law infirmaries is to be expected this Session; and, if not, whether he will give such definite advice to boards of guardians as will enable them to make the institutional provision urgently required for tuberculous persons without incurring expenditure on accommodation which may be unsuitable for its ultimate purpose?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not yet in a position to make any statement in regard to the first part of the question. As regards the latter part of the question, it is not the policy of the Government to encourage boards of guardians to make additional provision for tuberculous persons. I am pressing upon the public health authorities the need for providing further institutional accommodation for these cases, with the aid of substantial financial assistance from the Exchequer.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does not that mean a large amount of institutional provision that may be superfluous when there are Poor Law institutions available for the purpose, and suitable?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not think it does. 4s a matter of fact, we are several thousand beds short at the present time.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.

Mr. WADDINGTON: 65.
asked the Minister of Health if he has now received a large number of resolutions from municipal authorities asking for the alteration of the statutory date for holding municipal elections from 1st November to the third Saturday in May in each year; and if he proposes to take any action thereon?

Dr. ADDISON: I have now received resolutions in the sense indicated in the question from 48 municipal councils. I could not, however, take action in the matter without fuller evidence of a general desire for the alteration of the dates for municipal elections.

TURKISH MASSACRES.

Mr. CHADWICK: 06.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the total estimated loss of life due to massacres among the hitherto subject races of Turkey since the start of the War?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret it is impossible to give any estimates of an even approximately accurate nature.

LATVIA AND LITHUANIA.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: asked the Under-Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Latvia and Lithuania have received the recognition of Italy, and that representatives of the Italian Government are being sent to those countries: and whether, in view of the fact that it has been the consistent policy of the Allies to take no action of this nature without the consent of the majority, it may be assumed that Latvia and Lithuania will obtain complete de facto de jure recognition by both France and Great Britain in the immediate future?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore arise.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Are you quite sure of those facts?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Absolutely.

WAR ORPHANS (EMIGRATION).

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 70.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonics whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Government of Western Australia has signified its willingness to accept as immigrants several hundred war orphans between 9 and 16 years of age; and whether, having regard to the offer of the Oversea Settlement Committee of the Colonial Office to give free passages, he can suggest any steps that could be taken to ensure the provision of the necessary shipping facilities?

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on March 2nd.

FIJI (RIOTS).

Mr. SPOOR: 71.
asked the Under-Secretary for State for the Colonics whether any riots or disturbances have been taking place in Fiji; whether hundreds of Indians and women have been put into prison; whether there has been any shooting on the part of the authorities: and whether he can make a full statement on the situation?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 3rd of this month to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Bennett). I have since received a statement from the Governor of all arrests during the disturbances. Under summary jurisdiction, 128 men and 14 women have been convicted of riotous behaviour, and 10 men of other offences; the cases of 40 men and four women were dismissed. Twenty-three men and six women have been committed for trial on charges of wounding with intent, cutting telegraph wires, or riot. Twenty-seven men are on remand on charges of wrecking bridges, one on the charge of cutting telegraph wires.

Mr. LAWSON: 76.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to
a letter appearing in the Press from Mr. H. S. Polak; honorary secretary, Indians Overseas Association, stating that a cable has been received from the Imperial Indian Citizenship Association of Suva, Fiji, despatched on the date, 20th February, upon which an official telegram was despatched announcing the end of the strike of the Indian labourers, praying for urgent relief and the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the riots and their causes, on the ground that the Report of the local commission exposed the weakness of the Government in authorising firing under conditions amounting to martial law; whether he is aware that in this and other cables received in this country it is alleged that unnecessary racial legislation had been proposed or passed; that Indians were provoked to riots, as in the Punjab; that they have been terrorised and hundreds arrested and gaoled, including women, bail being refused, and trials indefinitely postponed; and whether, in view of these grave allegations, he will cause immediate inquiries to be made and relief given, and will appoint such an impartial Imperial Commission as the circumstances demand

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given to the hon. Member for the Bishop Auckland Division. I am not prepared to take any action on such unconfirmed allegations.

Mr. RICHARDSON: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, during the recent strike of Indian labourers in Fiji, troops from New Zealand were requisitioned for the sup pression of disturbances and fired on the strikers; and will he state the number of casualties?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: An armed guard of about fifty men was sent from New Zealand to assist in the maintenance of order. They have not, to my knowledge, fired on anybody, and they have caused no casualties.

Mr. RICHARDSON: 78.
asked what is the nature of the committee of inquiry appointed to discover the causes of the recent strike amongst Indian labourers in Fiji, its constitution, and the exact terms of reference?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: On February 3rd the Governor of Fiji telegraphed that during the previous week, as the result of
meeting a deputation from the strikers, he had appointed a Commission, with the acting Chief Justice as chairman, to investigate the whole question of the cost of living and the rate of wages, and to report what measures Government might take to adjust any disproportion; that the Commission which included the Hon. Badri Mahraj, Indian Member of the Legislative Council, was meeting at once, and that it was intended to give Indian representatives of the wage-earning classes opportunity to sit on the Commission in the different districts. The only other information I have on the subject is contained in a telegram of the 14th February, which stated that Mr. S. Chowla, who was nominated by the strike leaders as additional member of the Commission, had issued an appeal to Indians to resume work.

TRINIDAD.

Mr. SPOOR: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonics whether he has received a memorial from the inhabitants of the Island of Trinidad drawing attention to the Habitual Idlers Ordinance now in operation there; whether he is aware of the opinion held that the Ordinance undermines that liberty to which the people of the Colony as British subjects have been accustomed and consider themselves entitled; that throughout the British Empire no other such Ordinance obtains, except perhaps in Jamaica and the Malay Straits; that the Ordinance will have the effect of leaving labourers at the mercy of the employers and will effectively stifle the universal demand for higher wages; that it proceeds upon the principle that labour is a matter of compulsion and not of contract, and that pressure may be legitimately brought to bear upon working men in order to get them to conform to the desires of employers; that the whole burden of expenditure incidental to the working of the Ordinance will fall upon the taxpayers of the Colony, a large majority of whom are opposed to the enactment and will derive no benefit there-under; that the shifting of the onus of proof from the prosecutor to the defendant aggravates the drastic character of the Ordinance; that the right conferred upon the magistrate to relax the rules of evidence is dangerous and that there exists no right of appeal against the
decision of a magistrate; and whether he will give the memorial his careful consideration?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I have received the memorial to which the hon. Member refers. The Ordinance was passed to attain an important object, namely, to reduce the prevalence of praedial larceny, which had reached such a pitch as to become a deterrent to the cultivation of ground provisions and other foodstuffs by peasant proprietors. The Ordinance, which applies only to a male person who is found by a Magistrate to be an habitual idler, received the most careful consideration from the Secretary of State at the time, resulting in the enactment of an amending Ordinance to remedy certain points on which the original Law appeared to be defective. The Secretary of State, satisfied himself that it was most unlikely that the Ordinance could have any adverse effect upon wages, but he thought that its operation should be watched, and directed that an annual report upon its working should be supplied for the purpose.

Mr. SPOOR: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a petition from a number of signalmen formerly in the employment of the Trinidad Government Railway; whether he is aware that in December, 1917, the petitioners made application to the general manager of the railway for an increase of pay and received no reply; that application was made again in June. 1918, and a reply was received from the assistant manager to the effect that no increase could be granted that year, but the matter would be borne in mind for the 1919 Estimates; that a further application was made in February, 1919, and that, no reply being forthcoming, the petitioners sought an interview with the general manager in March, 1919; that an interview was arranged, but, when petitioners presented themselves, they were turned away with contumely; that subsequently, whilst at work, officials came to deprive them of their uniforms, and only after a strong protest were they allowed to keep their uniforms until they could get their own civilian clothing; that the petitioners were discharged, although they were certified as being efficient servants; and whether he will have close inquiry made into the treatment of these men, whose
only offence appears to have been the presentation of an application for higher wages to meet the increased cost of living?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I have received the petition to which the hon. Member refers and also a report from the Governor, from which it is clear that the general manager offered to see a deputation, and that these men were discharged for refusing to return to duty when ordered to do so. There is no reason to think that the men were treated with contumely when they presented themselves for interview with the general manager. My present information does not enable me to say whether the statement that the petitioners received no-reply to their application of December, 1917, is correct, but I will inquire.

EAST AFRICA (COINAGE).

Mr. STEWART: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can see his way to increase the fineness of the East African rupee to 500 and issue it as a 2s. piece of the new standard, thereby avoiding the possibility of confusion with the Indian rupee and also avoiding the issue of a coin by the British Government of unlimited legal tender, more than half composed of base metal; and will he consider the advisability of making a uniform issue of currency and coinage for all Crown Colonies and Protectorates in Africa under the administration of the Colonial Office?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: In view of the necessity of securing that no loss shall be incurred on the coinage, even if the price of silver should rise materially, I consider that it would be undesirable to increase the fineness of the new East African coinage. The intrinsic value of the currency is, in any case, immaterial, as it will be strictly based on sterling. To this extent the great majority of the British Colonies and Protectorates in Africa will now be brought on the same basis, though I regret that, for the present at any rate, the issue of a uniform currency has not been found practicable.

Mr. STEWART: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what value this new rupee is going to be, and whether there is any precedent in the British
Empire for issuing a coin of unlimited legal tender of more than half base metal?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: With regard to the latter part of the question, as the currency is strictly based on the sterling, and can always be exchanged for sterling in this country, the intrinsic value of the coin is immaterial. The actual value of the new rupee will be 2s.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the East African rupee resemble the Indian rupee to the outward eye, or will there be a clear difference, so that the two cannot be confused?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: These East African coins are entirely distinguishable from the Indian rupee?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: In view of the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated this is a sterling coin, does not the coin become a token coin, and, therefore, would it not be well to consider the issue of an Imperial currency note to get rid of all this trouble in British East Africa and Nigeria?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I can sympathise with the suggestion of my hon. Friend, but he must remember that in the conditions of tropical Africa, in dealing with people without pockets, it is desirable to have something besides paper currency.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Where do they carry their coins?

JAMAICA (TARIFF PREFERENCE).

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 75.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a commission representing the Colonial Office, Canada, and Jamaica, has been appointed to advise as to whether the preference granted by Jamaica to the Dominion should be extended to the United Kingdom; if so, what that preference consists of; whether the commission has any other functions; and at whose instance it was set up?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The question of preference between the West Indies, Canada and the United Kingdom has been under consideration at the Conference of Associated Chambers of Commerce of West Indies. No special commission of the character indicated in my hon. Friend's question has been appointed to
deal with the question of preference in Jamaica. As a matter of fact, Jamaica has not so far given a preference either to Canada or the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY COMMISSIONS (TEMPORARY OFFICERS).

Sir W. SEAGER: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for War the approximate number of Regular commissions to be granted to temporary officers; if it will be possible in the near future to acquaint the applicants whether or not their applications have been granted; and whether he is aware that many of these applicants are without employment?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies on the 2nd March to the hon. and gallant Members for Stirling and Clackmannan (Major Glyn) and Berwick-on-Tweed. It is not yet possible to state definitely the number of permanent commissions to be granted, and I regret it is therefore impossible to inform applicants whether their applications will be granted or not. I have no information which would enable me to answer the last part of the question.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon a decision may be expected, and is he aware that a lot of these officers are refusing to accept permanent civil employment in the hope that eventually they may receive commissions?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid it is not possible to fix a date when the decision will be announced, but I may say, generallly, there will be comparatively few commissions available, and mostly in technical branches of the service. Consequently, it would be unfortunate if officers delayed taking up employment.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is not the fact that there are going to be few commissions the more reason for coming to a quick decision?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No time will be lost, but it is impossible under present conditions to give a date.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that there are several officers who won the Victoria Cross who are not being
allowed to enter the Regular Army, although 23 years of age or thereabouts? I know of one case of a man, 23 years of age, with the Victoria Cross and Military Cross.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If the hon. and gallant Member will send a letter telling me of the case to which he refers, I will see whether it is possible to do anything.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already sent this case to the Secretary of State for War, and the answer is that they are afraid he will not be able to get a commission?

HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).

Sir CHARLES HANSON reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday the 16th March, at Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Great Yarmouth Water [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Hertfordshire County Council, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill.
3. "That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Ilford Urban District Council,' the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
4 "That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the Holborn Borough
1284
Council,' the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
5. "That, in the case of the Middlesex County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the Ilford Urban District Council,' the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
6. "That, in the case of the Nottingham Corporation, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on condition that Tramways Nos. 2, 3, and 5 be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

Resolutions agreed to.

Leave given to the Select Committee to make a Special Report in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements), Petition for Bill.

Special Report brought up, and read, as follows:—

Mr. VAUGHAN-DAVIES further reported from the Committee that they had agreed to the following Special Report:—" That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements), Petition for Bill, the principle embodied in Standing Order 22 is so important that the Committee do not feel justified in this case in exercising their discretion in regard to its suspension under Standing Order 92 without direction from the House."

Special Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS PRESENTED.

COUNTY COUNCIL ASSOCIATION EXPENSES (AMENDMENT BILL,

"to authorise an increase in the amount of certain payments by county councils to the county council associations," presented by Sir RYLAND ADKINS; supported by Sir Francis Blake, Mr. Lambert, Major Watts Morgan, Mr. Mount, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Turton, and Colonel Sir Robert Williams; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

SECRETARY FOR WALES (NO. 2) BILL,

"to provide for the appointment of a Secretary for Wales, and for purposes
connected therewith," presented by Mr. MATTHEWS; supported by Mr. Hinds, Sir Robert Thomas, Sir Edgar Jones, Mr. Brace, Mr. Thomas Griffiths, Mr. Vaughan-Davies, and Mr. Forestier-Walker; to be read a second time upon Friday 26th March, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House a question with regard to the Notice of Motion standing in his name suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night? Will he tell us the object, as we do not want to put the House to an unnecessary Division on the Motion?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This Motion is put down as it is necessary to fulfil the arrangement at which the House arrived on Monday. The intention of the Government in this Procedure Motion is only to allow free Divisions, as we thought the House ought to have the right to Divide, even though there is no open discussion on every Vote; otherwise, if the discussion goes on till Eleven o'clock, and the Rule is not suspended, it is not possible to take Divisions.
Ordered, "That the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law,]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £181,061, be granted to His Maesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including sundry Charges in connection with Transportation Schemes under The Ministry of Transport Act, 1919.

Mr. HOGGE: I was last night discussing this Estimate when we arrived at 11 o'clock. I was dealing then, first of all, with an analysis of the staff which has been created by the Ministry of Transport, and I should like, if possible, before I deal with any questions of policy to tender one or two criticisms in regard to the headquarters establishment;. I have remarked upon the disparity of the salaries which are being paid to the various heads of the Departments. I should like the Committee to look rather closely at page 75 of the Supplementary Estimates White Paper, where there are a number of additional notes with regard to the people who are appointed to each of these Departments. If we take first of all the second Department of the headquarters establishment and look, for example, at the position of secretary and solicitor, hon. Members will find after his name there are three letters (a), (b), and (c). We find an explanation of these letters on page 75. (a) tells us that the personal salary includes war bonus; (b) that the officer holding this post is on loan from a railway company (the company is not stated and his railway emoluments are a charge on the Ministry of Transport Vote); (c) tells us that he receives also £500 per annum disturbance allowance chargeable to Sub-head B. In making these appointments, particularly if after the experience of the two years, which is an experimental period during which the Ministry of Transport has to run, these men are to become permanent civil servants, I think the House ought to
be informed rather accurately as to who they are, and from which of the railway companies they have been loaned, and why in this particular case—I do not even know the name of the gentleman—£500 is paid as a disturbance allowance. There is another criticism that one might offer in regard to this, and that is the amount of the salary which is being paid to an official of this kind.
The House has some measure of guidance in reference to similar officers in other Government Departments. I think it is quite fair to put the point in this way. You have at the Board of Trade a solicitor who deals with similar questions—and certainly he must deal with quite as large and important questions as any solicitor belonging to the Secretarial and Legal Department of the Ministry of Transport, and the salary the State pays to that equivalent officer in the Board of Trade is £1,500, rising to £1,800, whereas the salary proposed to be given to this official with whom I am dealing is nearly double—£3,750. I say-nearly double, because I do not know how much must be allowed for (a), (b) and (c). In any case, this gentleman is receiving double the salary of a similar appointment in an equally large Department of the State. The same criticism would appear to apply to the principal assistant secretary, because under the Ministry of Transport he is to receive £1,200, rising by increments of £100 to £1,500, whereas the assistant secretary at the Board of Trade, which is a similar appointment, receives £800, rising to £1,000. I make that criticism because the expenditure of any new Department must obviously be determined by the initial salaries which are paid. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Neal) did so well last night in introducing the Estimates that, at any rate, he ought to prove to the House that we are getting value for our money. I am not taking the point—and I do not think that any Member of the Committee would take it—that you can pay too high a salary if you are saving by that salary. But I think one may consider that the salaries at the Board of Trade are comparable to the new Department, and we ought to have some justification for these large salaries.
If we go a little further down the paper we find that the Assistant to Solicitor is an (a) (b) and (d) man which means, when we turn to the explanatory note (d) that ho receives a special allowance of £250
per annum for increased responsibility. That raises a question I should like to put-straight away. Will my hon. Friend tell the Committee how many fresh men have been appointed to the Ministry of Transport and how many have been transferred from other Departments. The suggestion that someone who has been transferred to the post of Assistant to Solicitor, and receives in consequence £240 for increased responsibility, rather makes one wonder what post he held before, who he is, and why his new post should be determined in this way? If you look at Department (iii.), Development Department, you find there are four assistant directors, with (e) and (f). Turning to (e) you read that one of these four officers receives a personal salary of £900 per annum. I am sure the Committee would like to know why one of the four is in so different a position to the others, and why it is necessary in this case that he should carry a salary of £900 additional. In Department (iv.) there are three directors, with (g) following the office. In their case we have this note: One of these officers receives a personal allowance of £300 per annum. Why should one receive this? Turning to the Traffic Department (v.) I note that the Director-General is followed by (a) and (h). The latter means non-pensionable. I would like to know why there is a difference in the grading of these Civil Servants, some being graded with, and others without, pension rights? Why should we not have some clear line of demarcation between the two types of Civil Servants who are going to be members of the Ministry of Transport? I notice that in the Department of Public Safety and General Purposes Department (vii.) the Chief Inspecting Officer has (l) after his office. This letter denotes: Army retired pay, £200 per annum, deducted from salary. I think we are entitled to some explanation, because that point has been raised over and over again in respect of the treatment of discharged and demobilised men and officers. There may be a sufficient reason for the course suggested in this particular case, as to why this man's retired pay, which presumably he has earned as a soldier, should be deducted from his civilian salary, if he is given a civilian equivalent in the work he is performing!
4.0 P.M.
There are a number of other queries coming down the White Paper to (xi.). Temporary commissioner and secretary is a man who receives an allowance of £250 per annum while acting as commissioner. One would like to know, at this particular time, whether this is a temporary post or whether there is something more in it. If the Committee will look at page 75 and compare the wages paid there with the salaries paid on 73 and74 they will note the difference. I would ask the hon. Gentleman about some of these items. This is an old question which many new Members may not have heard raised before, a question to which we always ought to pay some attention. There are thirty-five cleaners, presumably charwomen, who deal with the offices in the morning—judging from previous discussions, it is a very long morning—and they are only receiving 14s. per week as against salaries of £5,000, and so on, for the officials There are one or two other interesting items. The Superintendents of Typists receive a less salary than the typists themselves. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed that fact. There are four Superintendents of Typists at 50s. per week, and there are two Superintendents of Temporary Typists who get 65s. per week. If you are a Superintendent of Typists who are only temporary you get 15s. per week more for supervising their work than if you are a superintendent of the typists of the Department, in which case you get 4s. per week less than the typists themselves.

Mr. HURD: There is more work in supervision.

Mr. HOGGE: If there be more work in supervision, they are entitled to higher pay. I should like an explanation of Item C, Law Charges, £1,000, particularly in view of the fact that under Section (ii), Secretarial and Legal Department, we are paying many thousands for legal advice. I do not see why we should have a Secretary and Solicitor costing £3,750 and then pay an extra £1,000 for law charges. Similarly, in Item D, Special Services, we have two Consultant Accountants drawing nearly £6,000 in addition to the technical departments. I must congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that he subscribes to a Press Cutting Agency. I do not know how much of the £4,200 goes to the Press Cutting Agency, but apparently this is an up-to-date institu-
tion. This is the first opportunity that we have had of discussing the whole policy of this great new Department, and we really want to be quite sure as to the basis of remuneration, because, if after two years, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport, determines that we are to nationalise the railways, obviously we shall carry all these salaries over and they will mean a very large new expenditure. Last night my hon. Friend said that there were 774 members already employed.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): On the establishment.

Mr. HOGGE: If they are not employed, I should like to know what they are doing on the establishment?

Mr. NEAL: There are 774 authorised by the Treasury, and 601 posts had been filled up to March 1st.

Mr. HOGGE: This Estimate does not take money for that number. This Estimate only provides for 758, and, although I do not make a great fuss about it, it is another illustration how a Government Department gets authority for doing what it has no right to do. This Estimate deals with 758 and no more, and my hon. Friend has no business to come down and say, "We have an establishment of 774 authorised by the Treasury," and he will have no right next year to tell us that those additional appointments have been made and that we have to pay the salaries because they were mentioned in this Debate. We are passing a Vote for 758, and I commend that point to him. After all, the House of Commons has some right and it is passing money for 758 and not 774. I would like to come to one or two questions of policy. Last night my hon. Friend made a very able speech, and those who have had an opportunity of reading it over will have noticed the contradiction in terms of policy which is contained in that speech. My hon. Friend, for example, said that the Ministry of Transport were not engaged in attempting to regulate and control the internal management and working of the railways of this country, and he pointed out that they could not be blamed if there were congestion at a port, or if there were a shortage of wagons, or if there were any other difficulty connected with the working of the railways. Further on in his
speech, dealing with the Development Department, Section 3 of the Estimates, he pointed out, among other things, that the London Traffic Advisory Committee and its technical and sub-committees were operating under the Ministry of Transport.
I see my hon. Friend, the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Kennedy Jones), in his accustomed corner, and we are very glad to see him back in the House after his recent illness. It is probably news to him that he is functioned under the authority of the Ministry of Transport. A good many of us would like to know what my hon. Friend is doing with the traffic of London. As far as we know, the only result is that it has been more difficult for hon. Members to reach this House. The police have agreed that the scheme is no use at all, and it has been scrapped, so that Members may roach the House in safety. There are a good many points with regard to the London Traffic Committee about which this House would be glad to have some information, and I invite my hon. Friend, if he has the opportunity, to tell us when he is going to deal with the traffic of London. He has said and he has written a great deal about it, and he has held himself up as a kind of wizard who has only to use some new Aladdin's lamp to give us a new traffic in London. What has he done, and, if he has not done anything, is it the Ministry of Transport which has prevented him from contributing to the safety of London? My hon. Friend went on further to point out, in connection with the Development Department, that Sir George Beharrell had had to examine critically the expenditure of the railways in which the State is interested. If my hon. Friend has no right and does not seek to function inside the railways which the Ministry control, why should any member of his Department examine critically the expenditure of the railways in which the State is interested?
In the same reference he dealt also with the question of wagons. He said that his Department had nothing to do with them. The railways were running under their own management and the Ministry were only attempting some co-ordination. I read of a railway company placing orders after consultation with the Ministry. Presumably, therefore, it cannot place an order unless it has consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport
Those contradictions in the statement of my hon. Friend lead me to ask, and I think the Committee are entitled to know, what it is that the Ministry of Transport do with regard to our railways? He told us last night that they did nothing, but on reading his speech it is quite obvious that if they do nothing they interfere a great deal, and we are entitled to know exactly what the Ministry of Transport do in connection with our railways. He said that it was the duty of the Minister of Transport to co-ordinate. If it be the duty of the Minister of Transport to coordinate and he co-ordinates with any measure of success, then the public, either in the ordinary passenger fares or in the rates for goods traffic, ought now to be receiving some benefit. If this co-ordination does not result in economy and in the saving of unnecessary expense, surely it is a work of supererogation. We would like to know how far my right hon. Friend takes cognisance of what is done by the Ministry of Food or the Ministry of Shipping. Do the Ministry know, for example, when cargoes of food are coming to this country? Do they know the ports to which they are coming and when they are to be discharged? Do they, with that knowledge, and with the transport of the country in their hands, so regulate the discharge of goods as to reach the consumers in the least possible time? We thought that we were going to achieve all that by the creation of the Ministry of Transport. We never imagined that we were going to continue to pay war passenger fares. We never imagined that it was going to be made more difficult for manufacturers to send their goods from one part of the country to another by an increase of rates. We never imagined that we were going to have the congestion which has obtained in different parts of the country.
I want to ask a very definite question. The Committee knows, and my hon. Friend pointed out yesterday, that under Section 3 of the Ministry of Transport Act the Minister is given a couple of years in which to come to certain decisions. He is given two years in which to make up his mind as to the question of railway policy. A Member of the Government, the Minister for War (Mr. Churchill), has stated quite definitely in his speeches that nationalisation of the
railways is the policy of the Government. My hon. Friend pointed out last night quite explicitly that it was not the duty of the Ministry of Transport to interfere in the internal arrangements of the railways, and that their duties were purely consultative, and, if not consultative, then co-ordinative. What is the policy of the Government? We are entitled to know. They have had seven months' experience and they cannot claim, after seven months, that they cannot give us some indication, because they have brought up two pages of highly-paid officials. They have managed to appoint any number of director-generals. I do not know if anybody has taken the trouble to take a census of the men who have been appointed, but at any rate there are seven director-generals, and, if you call a man a director-general, you have to give him a very large salary.
There is no doubt about that. If you begin with the general and come down to the staff, basing it upon the Army analogy, you are going to have an extraordinary number of officials, and I think this is a fair point for the representative of the Minister of Transport, when he comes forward and tells us he has all these officials to ask him whether he is in a position to show that he has them to carry out a particular policy. I ask what is the policy of the Government? Is it still experimental after these seven months for consideration or is the policy of the Minister for War who declared that it was the nationalisation of the railways? In this relation—I do not want to make a point of it—there is the sum of £50,000 which was paid to my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Transport, by the North Eastern Railway Company. I ask the question because he had a contract with this Company and the terms of it were that this sum of money was to be paid to him if and when the railways were nationalised. Now the money has been paid, and I am entitled to ask whether the Government policy is the nationalisation of railways, and, if it is not, what is the explanation of the payment of this £50,000.
I have already referred to the question of London traffic, and I want to deal for a moment with the Department of Public Safety and General Purposes. The hon. Member who represents the Ministry made an interesting statement with I regard to this Department. He pointed
out that, as a result, a Department was being set up with some kind of machinery whereby in future disputes would be avoided on the railways. When we consider the amount of money for the Public Safety Department we should also consider the amount of money that was wasted. If we turn to page 64 of this statement we find there that no less than a sum of £475,000 was provided for emergency services arising out of the railway strike. If I remember rightly there was an additional sum for this purpose connected with the Army Votes, making a total payment of over £500,000. The Committee will remember what was the cause of that particular strike. It was that the Government thought that prices were going down and less wages should be paid on the railways. We had a great number of negotiations. All were secret so far as this House was concerned. Matters vitally affecting the prosperity, convenience and comfort of the whole community were carried out behind the backs of this House?. I am sure we all remember the Prime Minister's description of those who were responsible for the strike as "Anarchists" but subsequently he met those "Anarchists" and came to a decision.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that this does not come under this Vote, and is therefore not relevant.

Mr. HOGGE: I submit that it is relevant on this Vote because I was dealing with the policy of the Government in respect to the railways, and I was congratulating the hon. Member who spoke for the Ministry of Transport upon what he had said with regard to the result of the recent dispute. He told us that a Committee was now being set up to deal with wages and conditions of service, with the object of arriving at a standardisation of wages and to avoid dispute in the future. I was trying to make my congratulations intelligible.

The CHAIRMAN: That was a controversial preamble, and I could not allow it to go on, because it would invite debate which would be irrelevant.

Mr. HOGGE: That being the case, I will leave it. I wished to congratulate him on this, and may I say this without being out of order? If we have future disputes and if proposals come before this House dealing with standardisation
of wages, I hope the whole Committee will agree with me that the more publicity you give the better. The policy of secrecy causes the greatest suspicion in the minds of the public and the greatest regret among the Members of this House, and I hope that in future such questions will not be dealt with in that way. It is the community that has to bear the burden in the end. I quite recognise that I should not take up too much time, but I wish to emphasise the need and the vital importance of something energetic being done in connection with the coastal traffic with the Scottish Islands. Some of us do come from Scotland and after all it is a part of the United Kingdom. On the west coast of Scotland we have many islands, and hon. Gentlemen will remember that these islands contributed many men to the Army and Navy. In particular the small island of Lewis gave 7,000 men to the Army and Navy, as the fishermen are in the Reserve as Naval men. The question of improving the traffic between the; main land of Scotland and these islands is a vital question for Scotland, and I want to emphasise that. I want to point out that the Ministry of Transport would be neglecting its duty, or omitting to do something which it ought to carry out, if it did not try to do its level best to improve this coastal traffic. The House of Commons is on the threshold of very large schemes, as I pointed out last night. The new Russia has large constructive social schemes. It has the idea of electrifying Russia. One proposal is the electrification of the Russian railways, and that would bring about new industries and a new social system in Russia. If there is anything real or genuine in the talk about a new world after this War, I think that depends to a large extent upon the prosperity of the people which also depends upon our communications, such as railways, canals and shipping. And when this new Ministry comes Before the House with its first proposals we ought to seize the opportunity, without any hostility towards the hon. Member who represents the Ministry, to offer our suggestions as to how we could make the best use of these communications. The end of every railway and its stations go to the homes of the people of the country, and it is the business of the railways to give cheap facilities to the people, to bring them commodities and all the things that they
need for their comfort in life. To do this is to make a solid contribution to their social welfare. Therefore we ought, when we are considering these matters, to give them the closest examination and endeavour to make suggestions that would be helpful, as I have tried to do.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: I intervene for a few moments, because the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken censured, or at least complained of, the action of the London Traffic Advisory Committee of which I am Chairman. He seemed to regard it as a great grievance that by an experiment that we had endeavoured to carry out in Parliament Square we had prevented him from having rapid and easy access to this House. I realise the enormity of the offence. I am very sorry that we should have inconvenienced one of the whips of a party in this House, however small it may be in numbers. I know it is a very regrettable thing, and ought not to be encouraged. By that experiment we were endeavouring to do something for the advantage of the public and to facilitate traffic, but we abandoned it at the beginning of the week owing to the many complaints made by the members of the Independent Liberal party that they were not able to reach the House as freely as they did before. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this apology for having interfered with the distinction which ought to attach to his office.
On a second point which arose with regard to the Advisory Committee on London Traffic, I think the right hon. Gentleman has been misled, if I may respectfully say so, by something which was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. An unfortunate phrase which he used last night was not quite clear. The Advisory Committee is not operating under the Development. Department. It is a Committee to advise the Ministry of Transport. It is an independent Committee to advise the Minister and has been set up in order to consider and to make recommendations as to the conduct of London traffic, what kind of authority ought to be set up, and to see that provision can be made to carry out those recommendations. We have divided the terms of reference into two points. The first was that we should appoint a technical Sub-Committee of experts to meet round a table and consider
what could be done by good-will and cooperation to diminish the congestion and chaos which existed in the London traffic. That work we are carrying on, and I think to some effect, despite the Parliament Square experiment to which my hon. Friend objected. It has had some effect in helping us to carry out experiments which are materially relieving the congestion and the chaos which exist in London traffic. Beyond that our second duty is to prepare a scheme, which we are now engaged in doing, by which London traffic is to be carried on under the new authority in conjunction with the Ministry of Transport. The report, setting forth the new traffic authority which ought to be set up, setting forth the conditions under which it ought to be set up and the powers that ought to be given to it—powers which are now held in this Department and that Department—setting forth how all these are to be brought together and placed in the hands of one authority under the Ministry of Transport, will be published in the course of the next ten days. I think, so far as the Advisory Committee is concerned, it has been brought into this discussion without any reason. It has no relation at all to the Supplementary Estimate which is under discussion, because the whole of the labour of the 25 men who constitute the Technical Committee and the Advisory Committee is given without any remuneration. There is no expense involved. They are men who are giving their time to the State, and therefore are in no way concerned in the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the Chairman included in that?

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Not only the Chairman, but the Committee, and I can tell my hon. Friend that the Chairman—and I am the unfortunate Chairman—has to employ two Secretaries to enable him to get through his work, and he pays for them himself. I think the only reason why my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) brought the matter in was that the representative of the Ministry of Transport last night used an unfortunate word in describing the work of the Advisory Committee, and it was because I desired to make this explanation that I intervened in the Debate.

Mr. HOPKINS: I should like to join in the congratulations which have been showered on the hon. Member representing the Transport Department; but I want to call attention to one exception to the efficiency of the Ministry of Transport, and that is the disastrous deterioration in the services rendered by, and the working of, the private-owned wagons on the railways. I have had sent to me now and again statements comparing, month by month, the working of these wagons when they were managed by their owners and since they have been pooled and managed at the orders of the Government. Averaging those results, I think it is no exaggeration to say that these wagons to-day are rendering one-third less service than they rendered while they were under private management. That is an extremely serious loss to the carrying capacity of the companies and particularly to the coal-carrying capacities in which these wagons were mostly engaged. It is easy, perhaps, to guess at the reason for that. The private owner took care that he had a competent man to look after the running and demurrage of these wagons, and he had a great interest in seeing that these wagons, which were part of his very extensive trade equipment, should be used efficiently.

Mr. NEAL: My hon. Friend is really under a misapprehension. There is no such pool of privately-owned wagons.

Mr. HOPKINS: All. I can say is that the owners of these wagons complain very bitterly that they have not got control of their own wagons—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is so."]—and I understand that is the fact. My hon. Friend may be quite right and the owners may be wrong, but that is their contention. If anything can be done to put it right I am sure that the owners of the wagons and the public will greatly benefit.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I wish to draw attention to what I think most traders will agree is the deplorable and inefficient service which we are getting from our transport system. In saying that I do not wish to generalise, because we have been told before that it is easy to make sweeping assertions; but I wish to give a few figures which, I am sure, are only typical of the whole country, although they are taken from a particular district
of which I have some little knowledge. In March last year I had the privilege of accompanying a deputation to the Board of Trade with regard to the North-East coast, when the stocks of finished iron and steel material amounted to 64,000 tons. Owing to representations then made there was a reduction in that stock, so that at the end of June it had fallen by one-half owing to the more efficient method of transport on the railways. Unfortunately that did not continue, and by September the amount had increased to 53,000 tons, and in December it was 70,000 tons. At the end of last month the stocks of finished iron and steel materials on the North-East coast alone was 92,000 tons, as compared with the 32,000 in June. It was a most deplorable increase, showing that the inefficiency of the service was, unfortunately, greater then than it was in June.
It is not merely a question of the stocks having gone up owing to the inefficiency of the railway service, but the "make" during that period of the various works-did not increase. It is quite possible to say that although your stocks have an increase your "make" has been increased, and therefore you have been getting more service from the railways. But I will take one particular week in the North-Eastern area. The "make" there was 30,000 tons, but the average "make" during six months was only 19,000 tons. Instead of the works turning out 30,000 tons they only turned out 19,000 tons per week, and, notwithstanding that, their stocks have increased. Therefore I submit to my hon. Friend that, despite his very able statement last night, "the proof of the pudding lies in the eating," and that, as a matter of fact, the service that has been rendered to the traders of the country by our railway system instead of getting better is getting worse, to the serious disadvantage of the whole country. We are told from the Front Bench over and over again that the one need of the present time is production. They say: "Let us have production and we shall soon right our position with regard to debts and the balance of imports over exports." But what are the railways, and what is the Minister of Transport doing to help the country to get over that difficulty? Unfortunately up to the present they have done very little in the way of increasing the carry-
ing capacity, and this works in various ways in the most hurtful direction. I am told that during the last year on the North-East coast there had been a diminution of output, compared with what they could have produced, of 725,000 tons of material, equal to at least £15,000,000 worth of goods, which might, if only railway facilities had been available, have been used for the export trade and for reducing our trading balances, and particularly to reduce our exports to a nearer-level with imports. This was in every way a most desirable thing—a thing that the men themselves would do. They are thrown out of work Because facilities are not there to deal with the products of their work. This has a disastrous effect on the men themselves. I know of works where stocks, instead of being, as in ordinary conditions they would be, 5,000 tons, were 20,000 tons, and that particular works had to stop for a whole week because their sidings were so congested that it was dangerous for them to continue production. What was the effect on the mentality of the men? They have naturally said to themselves, "We have been turning out too much. We have been turning out 5,000 tons a week when the railway is only able to deal with 4,000 tons." The consequence is that if we turn out 5,000 we have got to play one week in four in order that the railway company may catch up our production. That is only a human inference. Therefore you get a reduction of output on the part of the men; a reduction on the part of the mill; a reduction of exports; and in every way you are defeating the object which every one is desirous to aim at, namely, to increase production. Therefore I appeal to the Ministry to do more than they have been doing. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary told us last night that his prime duty was to devise a policy for the railways some years hence, and I quite agree with him, but I would respectfully submit that, at the present, the most urgent thing is to improve the existing facilities so that we may be able to handle this output of goods which we are so anxious to have. All the world is clamouring for our goods, and will pay any price for them. We are simply throwing away a golden opportunity by these unfortunate hindrances to increased production. What is true of one particular section is true of the whole
of the country. People in the West Hiding and in Lancashire can give similar figures, and, therefore, this is no case of special pleading for one particular district. What I have said applies to the whole trading of this country.
The hon. Gentleman may ask what can he do? He told us that 15,000 wagons had been returned from France, but he did not tell us how many were sent overseas during the War, and how many remain there. We were informed in February this year that there were still nearly 30,000 wagons to come back, and that they were to be brought over at the rate of 800 or 900 per week; but unfortunately we have not had them returned at anything like that rate. If only 15,000 have come back, and originally over 40,000 went overseas, what has become of the others? Why have not the Government who have it in their power—for it is not in the power of the railway companies—returned them? I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his Department should expedite the return of these wagons. We are told that numbers have been disposed of in France and Belgium because they were not suitable for return to this country. Why were they not suitable? Surely it would, be much cheaper and quicker to alter the type of existing wagons rather than to build new ones Instead of selling them to our Allies on the Continent, the state of the trade here is so serious that these wagons should be brought home and altered and adapted, so as to be suitable for running on our lines I know there is a difference in the gauge of from one-eighth to three-sixteenths of an inch, but it would be possible, by altering the flanges, and so on, to make the wagons suitable for running in this country. I therefore do suggest that in addition to the other steps the Ministry are taking they should expedite the return to this country of the remaining wagons.
I have one other suggestion, and that is that the Ministry should urge the railway companies to expedite the handling of their traffic. We have figures from the North-East coast showing the time wasted on loading and demurrage at the works. When complaint is made, the railway companies always throw the blame on the works; but the real waste of time is caused by the railway companies themselves in moving goods from one point to another. Figures that have
been taken out show that it takes a most deplorable amount of time to transport goods only a few miles. In the case of the Toes and the Tyne, a distance of about 50 miles, it takes 15 days in many cases to get a truck moved from one works to another. At Sheffield there is a delay of 60 days, and at Glasgow of 61 days I have all the facts outlined here, giving the particular works at which the goods are loaded and to which they are sent, and it is clear that instead of the transport taking only two or three days, as in pre-war times, it now occupies three or four times as much, thereby reducing the power of our transport system by from 50 to 100 per cent. It is not the shortage of wagons so much as that the wagons are not made the most efficient use of, and I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to advise with the various railway companies to see what can be done to avoid these delays. We have been told when we have complained to the Department that we should make our complaint to the railway company.
We have done that on the North-East coast. We have been to the Board at York, and they have come to us. We have discussed the question with them. They tell us that they are doing all that they can, but, notwithstanding that, the position on the North-East coast is such that the stocks now waiting for trucks are three times as large as they were in March last year. We are reaching a deplorable state of things, and therefore I again urge the hon. Gentleman not only to hasten the return of the wagons from France, but also to expedite the movement of wagons here from point to point. It may be said that to do this would involve the adoption of the three-shift system. I made that suggestion some time ago, and the reply was that if they had the three-shift system on the railways it would be necessary also to have three shifts at the works. But in our district men are working on the three-shift system, and there would be no difficulty in keeping a staff standing by the whole of the night in order to deal with material which we cannot get and which the whole of the works are standing in need of. I hope the hon. Member in charge of this Vote will convey to the railway companies the seriousness of this problem, which is holding up the production of goods so seriously wanted. The remedy is in his hands, if he will only
make more efficient use of the facilities he has. If he docs that, the £181,000 ho is asking for to-day will be money well spent in ensuring more efficient services.

Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: There is a strong feeling in the country and, as is apparent from this afternoon's Debate, in this House also, that the Ministry of Transport has not fulfilled the expectations which its authors promised when the Bill was before the House. I think experience has shown that if we bring complaints before the Ministry, they state that they cannot remedy the matter because it is one within the province of the railway company, while if we approach the railway companies they tell us it is a matter for the Ministry. So for the only result of the formation of the Ministry of Transport has been to incur a very large amount of expenditure, and to give excuses to various bodies to put off doing what is demanded by the public. That being the case, it is very unfortunate that to-day, when these large Estimates come on, in the very first year of the existence of the Ministry, and when therefore we really want to know what it's policy is going to be, it is very unfortunate that the Minister of Transport is not here. I understand he is not well; I am glad to hear that his illness is only temporary, and under the circumstances I would suggest that, if possible, the Vote be withdrawn and put down for one day next week, so that we may have the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's attendance. I say that in no disparagement of the Parliamentary Secretary I am sure he will do his best to answer questions, but he has not been in office for very long, and it would be quite impossible to get from him all the explanations which the House would naturally demand We want to know something, for instance, about the enormous salaries that are to be paid. I therefore suggest that, if possible, and I believe it to be possible, the Vote should now be withdrawn and put down for another day.

Mr. SEXTON: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on the statement he made in introducing this Estimate. I have no particular quarrel with the Ministry of Transport. My point is that the powers which the Minister has got are
insufficient for the task which he has undertaken. I was a member of the Ways and Communications Committee upstairs, and I noticed that the powers proposed to be conferred in the original Bill were such as would have enabled the Minister to do his work much more effectively than those he now possesses. I quite agree that it is too much to expect that in the short period of six months during which the Ministry of Transport has been in existence, it should have performed miracles. That would be too much to expect from any Government authority. The time has been too short, and in addition to that, at the date at which the Minister commenced his duties, congestion was at its very height, and how could it possibly be expected that it could be remedied within six months? May I venture to express the opinion that the Minister of Transport has been contaminated with the prevailing condition of congestion. I am not a financier, but I have glanced over the Headquarters Establishment and have noticed the numerous offices which it is proposed to create. There is a Secretary and Solicitor, who will receive a salary of £3,750. Lower down I see there is an Assistant Solicitor who will receive £1,200, an assistant to the Solicitor who will receive £1,020, and another assistant to Solicitor who will get £700, while professional assistant to the Solicitor will receive £500. But the unfortunate Labour Adviser to the Ministry of Labour, with whom I have every sympathy, and who, I venture to say, will do as much work as the six or seven gentlemen I have named, receives the munificent salary of £500 per year. I want to submit that in this particular, at all events, there appears to be considerable congestion in the Head quarters Establishment, We talk of the principle of "one man, one job," but in this particular office we apparently have seven men for one job.
5.0 P.M.
My main point is that the powers of the Minister of Transport are not sufficient to meet the case, and that the powers originally intended to be given to him having been taken out of the Bill which has now become an Act, we cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to perform miracles with such very meagre material. The Parliamentary Secretary last night told us that the railways manage their own business in their own way, and that it is intended to allow them to go on
doing that. That is my point. If I have any quarrel at all with the Minister of Transport it is because I object to the railway companies being allowed under existing conditions to manage their business in their own way. That is the crux of the whole situation. A question has been asked as to the coastwise traffic, and the effects upon it of the railway subsidy. The truth is that this coastwise traffic is almost paralysed owing to the subsidy given to the railways conferring on them a great advantage in the points of tonnage and tariffs. Fifty per cent. of the coastwise ports were closed during the War and the bulk of them are yet closed, and the coastwise trade is handicapped by the fact that when we go in for an advance of wages to meet the increased cost of living we are told, very pertinently, by the coastwise owners, "if we give you any more money we shall have to raise the tariff and we are now competing with the railways, which are subsidised, and the result is that we are going to lose our coastwise trade. There is no denying that at all. These ports are still closed owing to the fact that the coastwise trade is severely handicapped by the agreements which have been made with the railways. I hope the hon. Gentleman will relieve the congestion by making the conditions better for the coastwise traffic as compared with the railways.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I want to direct attention to the real meaning of the whole Estimates which are now submitted. We are asked to approve Votes amounting to £181,000, but in reality we are asked to do a great deal more than that, because that sum covers the service of a new Ministry for a portion of the year. If we approve of this Vote we are giving approval to the whole system which has been adopted and set up by this Ministry. I have worked out a few figures based upon one year's service. Under Section 1 the total submitted amounts to £4,555. The total for the same officials calculated for one year, taking the minimum salary, amounts to £7,350. Under Section 2 the total submitted is £7,555, while the total annual service, which will be the burden that we accept if we pass these Votes, is £14,300. Under the Development Department, Section 3, the amount submitted is £6,991, and the annual service will amount to £17,780. Under Section 4
the comparison is £9,946 supplementary against annual £19,950. The remaining sections follow pretty much the same ratio. In respect of the item of £125,534, the total annual service amounts to £236,501, so that we are approving an item there of about £110,000 greater than the figures submitted, for we are in reality approving an annual service amounting to about £300,000 against a vote of £181,000 for the portion of the year covered by this Estimate. I have also had the curiosity to make a comparison of the remuneration and pay of the principal officers, and I thought it would not be a bad standard to take the highest-paid secretary in any other Departments—say the Treasury and the Foreign Office, the two most highly paid in the country. They amount in those two Departments to £2,500. In all other Departments they are substantially less. I have taken the two highest in the most responsible State positions. I have taken the principal offices here, Directors-General, etc., the highly-paid men in the Ministry of Transport. There are about 15 of them and they average out at something like £3,000 per annum. You have a complete Cabinet and the complete remuneration of a Cabinet. And this is how it is proposed to start to effect economy! If you average the first 238, including these highly paid officials I have mentioned, you get an average for large and small of £641. It is an extraordinary establishment, and we must be prepared to see some truly magical results if we are to engage a staff of this magnitude remunerated on this scale.
I have not the slightest desire to adopt an absurd attitude, or to criticise this new Ministry merely for the sake of criticism. I shall be delighted to give it all the assistance which can possibly be given if it be shown to be for the good of the country at large. About a year ago the then Minister Designate told us what the Ministry was to do, and we are entitled to ask him or the Parliamentary Secretary to reconcile this expenditure with what was to be accomplished by the setting up of this Ministry. If he fails to do that the Vote ought not to be granted. The right hon. Gentleman said last year that behind the Bill was co-ordination, unified control of all transportation and the elimination of waste. Unless the docks were to be under the Ministry he could not ensure
economy, which alone would avert calamity. Unless he was given the powers he asked for he would have to put up goods rates 70 or 80 per cent. They are only a few, but they fairly represent what the right hon. Gentleman said when submitting his Bill for Second Reading. I searched the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary last night to find one word of justification of that general policy which was outlined last year. I defy anyone to say there was anything in the speech last night which justified the expenditure of this money in the achievement of objects which the right hon. Gentleman said last year he would achieve if he was given power to set up this Ministry. I expected that the Parliamentary Secretary would give us in great detail some of the economies which were to be effected. We cannot expect him to show us great economies which have already been effected, but after the lapse of six months we are at least entitled to say, "let us see where these economies are to be brought about: how far have you advanced in giving effect to them?" Surely that is not pressing criticism too far, and surely he should be able to show that in the course of six months he has arrived at a certain point and accomplished a certain amount which will give some justification for this Vote. But not a word indicating where the economy is to be effected. I was delighted to hear him say that there was a saving of £50,000,000, and I have been searching to see how he effected it. I find he was referring to an additional £50,000,000 which has been collected from the consumer by additional goods rates, and that is what he calls stopping a leakage, by charging the traders £50,000,000 more on the new rates fixed by the Rates Advisory Committee. If they are going to go on effecting economies and stopping leaks in that way, God help the country, because if he is only going to stop leaks by making charges on other people and that is the only bung that he has to stop the hole and prevent anything running out, we are indeed in for a bad time.
The Parliamentary Secretary said last night that the Act was the redemption of a pledge at the last election. The pledge given at the last election was to give improved travelling facilities. Is there a sign at present of improved travelling facilities? Not a sign anywhere. I do
not press it too far, but did the Parliamentary Secretary indicate anywhere where these improved facilities were coming from? What has been done since the institution of the Ministry of Transport to found this service, and when may we expect these improved facilities to be available? All we have so far, and the Parliamentary Secretary has said nothing to prove to the contrary, is absolute mess and muddle and the Parliamentary establishment of bureaucracy.

Mr. ATKEY: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the admirable speech he made last night. It was typical of the best Parliamentary effort, inasmuch as it led those of us who succumbed to its sway to believe that in this new Ministry of Transport we have started the first instalment of the "new Heaven and the new earth." I, unfortunately, come into contact with the stern and horrible realities of the position, and they differ very materially from the very charming and alluring picture which my hon. Friend painted last night. He is, of course, a past master in the art of making black look almost spotlessly white, but I can assure the Committee, from my own experience of what is really happening in the transport world to-day, that the situation is quite as black as my hon. Friend succeeded in painting it the purest white last night. In the commercial world there is very great trouble. I desire to place before the Committee an alternative view of the situation so that they may judge between the two pictures, and, I hope, arrive at some decision which may be materially helpful to those who are primarily concerned with this great transport problem. In the country, more especially in the great centres of industry, the tune is not the happy one that we heard last night. The real tune which is being played by the Ministry of Transport in the cities is really the "Dead March in Saul"—or in Nottingham, London, and elsewhere. According to the Parliamentary Secretary, the strain is the "Hallelujah Chorus."
I feel bound to draw attention to the more sombre side of the situation and to urge the Committee that they must not allow to remain permanently on their minds the impression that was conveyed to them last night by the eloquence of the Parliamentary Secretary. He told us that
the object of this Department was to improve the transport facilities of the country. In that he will have the hearty co-operation and support of every Member of the Committee, but, unfortunately, what has happened up to now is that throughout the country, so far as the transport system is concerned, we have succeeded in obtaining nothing but paralysis of energy and initiative on the railway systems. He told us what he thought would surprise the Committee—and it certainly was a revelation to me, and must have been to many other hon. Members—that the Minister of Transport was not concerned with the details of railway administration. He was not concerned with troubles of the trader or the difficulties of the traveller. That is altogether beneath his function. The only object of the Ministry of Transport Act, and therefore, I presume of the Ministry, is, we were told, to enable the Minister to form an opinion as to the advice which he will give to this House when the powers bestowed upon him are about to lapse. That seems to me to be a very extraordinary function for a Minister to undertake, and in view of the methods which he has adopted to be able to form that opinion, the figures that either this country or any individual have ever had to pay for expert advice in all the ages, will fall into insignificance compared with the price we have to pay for the expert opinion as to what is to be done, by the country when this Act ceases to be operative.
At the same time I think he is to be congratulated in no measured terms upon the steps that he has taken to assure himself that the advice he will receive will be of an exceptional character. He apparently does not feel that he ought to impose his own advice upon the House. I do not know whether he is too modest to suppose that his own capacity is sufficient, or whether he thinks that it ought to be reinforced. The fact remains that he has surrounded himself with a galaxy of talent the like of which has never before been placed at the service of any Minister of the Crown. We are going to pay in the ensuing twelve months something like £300,000 for advice which is to be tendered to the Minister of Transport, over which I suppose he will meditate during the next twelve months, and then finally this House will wait with bated breath the great results which will
follow the accumulation of this colossal mental effort. I shall not be agreeable to support a policy of that character, and I hope this Committee will take some steps to correct the perspective of the Minister, who has assumed that this House has given him carte blanche, without any limit, to engage staff to any extent, and of such a magnitude. There are six or seven "generals." I suppose that is a phrase reminiscent of the War They are called director-generals, but I presume they are real "generals," and they average something like £3,000 a year each.
I was very much interested in the interpretation of the transformation of opinion by the canal owners that was given by the Parliamentary Secretary. He told us, with the natural pride of a Minister in his own Department, that so far from the Ministry of Transport being a body which these authorities did not desire to join, the very people who protested against the formation of the Ministry were now so converted by the magnificence of its organisation, that they have asked to come under its beneficent sway. It may be that they have been influenced by the views expressed by my hon. Friend; but I have been told by some of those who are directly interested in canals that the only reason why they want to come under the Ministry of Transport is because the action of the Ministry of Transport and the Government control of the railways has threatened them with absolute ruin, and they are anxious to "get in out of the wet," so to speak, and come under the protection of the Ministry of Transport in order to save their assets.
Will, the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what practical steps the Ministry propose to take to convert the present paralysis existing on the railway systems into something like pre-War initiative? Business people before the War in the large centres of industry were waited on daily by three or four representatives of railway companies who were keen on securing their business. Those same three or four railway companies are just as anxious to dodge your business to-day as they were to secure it before. We are entitled to know what kind of injection the Ministry proposes to use upon those corporate bodies in order to restore some of their pre-War vitality, which has apparently become entirely paralysed by Government control.
There are three points on which I desire the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport to furnish information. During the last six months I have had occasion to raise the subject of the interavailability facilities for travellers on railways, and the action of certain railways, where they run in duplicate to certain towns, in refusing to grant passengers interavailable facilities, thereby causing the greatest inconvenience and trouble. Those facilities have only been secured after constant efforts. Prior to the Ministry of Transport being formed the Board of Trade said they had no power to deal with the matter. Since the Ministry of Transport has been in power there has been very little improvement in that respect.
The second point deals with the Bill which has passed through this House in June, 1915, by which the Corporation of Nottingham are bound to improve the navigation of the river Trent. That Bill placed upon them the powers and obligations of the Trent Navigation Company, and under the seal of the corporation they are required to carry out that much needed improvement. So far as I can see there is no reason why the Minister of Transport, who wants the waterways to be improved, and wants to see some practical results from the inception of the Ministry, should not see that that improvement of an important waterway of this country is inaugurated forthwith. The men are ready for the work, the materials are ready, the Corporation is ready, and the scheme could be started within twenty-four hours of the Ministry giving the necessary authority, and recommending to the Treasury the financial support which the Development Commissioners agreed to give in 1915. In view of the lavish expenditure which has been recommended by the Ministry of Transport in connection with its own staff, the least they can do when there is practical work available which is greatly needed, and generally admitted to be from the greatest possible advantage, is to see that the work is started with the least possible delay.
It is doubtless in the memory of the Committee that I have for some time past been drawing attention to the closing of the gate of a railway station in Nottingham. The inception of this incident is
now getting quite historical. On the 1st July last, which is a red letter day for me, because it happened to be my birthday, I started to celebrate that happy event by trying to do a little good for 2,000 or 3,000 of my own fellow-citizens, but my efforts did not meet with enthusiastic support from the then President of the Board of Trade. Although he condescended to answer questions in the most perfect Government style, he either gave no information at all, or gave incorrect information. It was an attempt to postpone further consideration in the hope that the questioner would get tired first. I cannot get tired of this job, for the very good and sufficient reason that so long as the present situation obtains in Nottingham there are 2,000 or 3,000 people at least who are irritated every day. One of the first principles of democratic government is that a Member of this House should give representation to the feelings of his constituents. Therefore I am helpless in this matter. I hope that the Committee will come to the rescue of the Ministry of Transport, because one day, when one hon. Friend took pity on me and asked a supplementary question, as to the person from whom would he take advice, the Minister of Transport said he would take his instructions from the House of Commons.
This is the first opportunity I have had of appealing to the House to impress upon the Minister that the time has arrived when he should, to use an American expression, really "sit up and take notice" that something is required of him. I am afraid that the real merits of this question have got lost sight of owing to the fact that the Department has more or less pledged itself to support an official opinion instead of the opinion of this House, and I appeal with sincerity and confidence to this House, because while this is a small incident it involves a big principle—whether this House is going to permit the advice of one of its Members to be over-ridden in favour of the view of the minor official of a railway company. I have used every endeavour to persuade the Government to help the people of Nottingham in this respect, but the Under-Secretaries—I have spoken to two—have both taken the same attitude. "I have the greatest sympathy with you, but I cannot take any notice of you. "We must rely on the advice which we are given."
That is very interesting. I wonder who is giving the advice? He seems to be a railway official. I said, "Who is to to counterbalance the railway official? I am inclined to think that Members of Parliament should be able to impress on you advice which would be on a parity with a minor railway official." My hon. Friend said that that could not possibly prevail. I said, "Will you suggest to me any person? If I get five Members of the House of Commons, do you think that their concerted opinion would balance that of a minor railway official?" He said he did not think so. I said, "If can get the Prime Minister to express an opinion on the subject, do you think that that might count?" I saw him wavering when it came to a question of the Prime Minister, and he went so far as to prejudice his particular view by saying, "Well, perhaps we might be inclined to take some little notice of the opinion of the Prime Minister."
The people of Nottingham have decided to confer upon the Prime Minister the Freedom of the City, and I am therefore hopeful that it may be possible to induce the Prime Minister to travel to Nottingham by the Midland Railway, and if by some beneficent act of Providence we could only get him to arrive when this state of congestion and worry of the people of that city prevailed, I am quite certain that our hopes would be fulfilled and that the annoyance and irritation caused daily to thousands of people would be removed. But really, Parliament is reduced to a farce if on a comparatively small matter of this character the expressed view of a representative of the people is to be ignored and shelved as this matter has been. I would be quite satisfied, however, if my hon. Friend will convey to the Minister of Transport as from this House that I have secured for him the necessary evidence which will justify him in acceding to my request, by giving to the people of Nottingham that access to the street and to the station which will be of such material advantage to the thousands of people who use that station every day.

Dr. MURRAY: On the question of coastal traffic, my voice is sometimes like that of a voice crying in the wilderness: but this afternoon it was refreshing to hear two Members of this House discuss the question of coastal traffic and its relation to the Ministry of Transport.
When the Bill was going through the House the matter was referred to, but since it became an Act the Minister seems to be entirely obsessed by the railway mind. That is probably natural, seeing that we have a big railway magnate at the head of the Ministry, but when last night I heard my hon. Friend (Mr. Neal) in his admirable speech mention the fact that an Admiral had been put in charge of the Development Department of the Ministry, then I thought, "Here I have my chance at last; now we will hear something about coastal traffic." I asked in passing about the relation of this Admiral to coastal traffic. He looked at me as if I were a phenomenon and passed on and told me that this Admiral's chief function was to deal with light railways. Think of the waste of talent in this Ministry of talent to have an Admiral in charge of light railways when you have a big problem of coastal traffic on which to exercise his professional knowledge. I hope that when the Development Department is working my hon. Friend will remind the Admiral that there is such a thing as salt water surrounding the British Isles, and that we do not all get to our homes by railways; that some of us have to get there by sea and also to get our food and other supplies by sea.
When the Bill was going through I asked the Home Secretary if it had anything to do with coastal traffic, and he told me it had. I then let the matter sleep for a while. Then I put a question to the Minister, and he told me that it had very little to do with coastal traffic. The question of coastal traffic has been mixed up between a dozen Departments. I put a question to the Postmaster-General. He tells me that he has only got to deal with the carriage of letters, and things of that sort. The Minister of Food could not attend to it. The Minister of Shipping tried to do his best. Then I went to the Treasury, but the reply was unsatisfactory. Then I put a question to the Prime Minister, as I thought I would get to the top, and he referred me to the Treasury. I thought that the Treasury would reply when I drew attention to the question of coastal traffic on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and it was not the Secretary to the Treasury, but the Secretary of Scotland who was put up to reply, and he said that he was not sure whether he was the proper Minister to deal with the matter. That
is the sort of way in which the Government have dealt with the question of coastal traffic which interests a great number of the people of this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, whose persistence with regard to that everlasting gate will, I hope, be rewarded as it ought to be, told us that 2,000 people were inconvenienced, perhaps kept 2½ minutes late, by this gate; but on account of the very defective condition of coastal traffic in many parts of the country, especially on the West Coast of Scotland, a vast population is affected. I am not referring to my own constituency alone. Every county is involved, and when my hon. Friend comes back as Member for Argyllshire, as I am sure he will, he will come back laden with promises to ask the Ministry of Transport to look after coastal traffic. It is the great question that concerns the people of the West Coast of Scotland at the present time, and deserves the serious attention of the Ministry, which should not be devoted merely to the people who are supplied by railways, but should also be concerned with the convenience of those people who are dependent entirely upon seaborne traffic for passenger service, food supplies, getting produce to market, and every other convenience. My hon. Friend did refer to coastal traffic last night, but not in the sense in which I wanted him to refer to it. He told us that a subsidy was given to encourage coastal traffic in order to relieve the railways. I want him to apply his mind to those places that have no railways and are entirely dependent on coastal traffic, and to see that facilities for getting about and getting goods are made as convenient for those people in those out-of-the-way places, those outposts of Empire, so to speak, as for those who are dependent upon railways.
It is not a question of inconveniencing 2,000 people for 2½ minutes, but of inconveniencing from 200,000 to 300,000 people, and sometimes those who want to travel are held up many days because of the lack of transport facilities. I wish particularly to thank my hon. Friend, the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). He was the first Member not from the Highlands who referred to the matter in this House. The Ministry has not realised what a question of life and death it is to these people. I can congratulate the Government upon the Smallholders Bill and the Land Settlement Bill, but
there is no use in settling men upon land in any part of Scotland, and especially in any part of the Highlands and islands, unless transport facilities are increased pari passu. During the War at the busiest time there was a Transport Committee sent roving all over Scotland. It used up all our petrol, going about in motor cars, telling us that this was a very urgent question and must be settled at once. What has been the result? An increase of transport facilities? No. In those places where such facilities are most needed they have been reduced by one-half. The Member for East Edinburgh referred to the. Island of Lewis. For the last forty years there has been daily communication between the island and the mainland. Now we are sent back to the dark ages of fifty years ago when the facilities were quite as good as they are now, for they are now reduced to three days a week. Here in England you have mails seven days a week, everywhere except in the Metropolitan Area. The Government can save a lot of money by taking away that seventh day service. Nobody but a lunatic would want to be bothered with letters on a Sunday. But if that money were saved—we do not want the Sunday delivery in Scotland for we know the Fourth Commandment there—the transport facilities could in that way be increased in those places that have a mail service transport, not seven days in the week, but only three days in the week and in some cases only two days.
I think the people of these parts deserve better of this country than to be treated in that way. If you are to have any kind of real reconstruction in the Highland and the islands, you cannot have it without improved transport facilities. The Committee to which I have referred found that the facilities then existing ought to be improved, and they recommended accordingly. That was when we had a daily service between the islands and the mainland. Now, instead of the recommendation being carried out, we have the transport facilities reduced by half. Those who have travelled on the West Coast of Scotland must have noticed the large number of motor-cars which are running about. I would advise the. Ministry to sell some of those cars and to buy a yacht. The Minister can then see many places where the travelling
facilities are far behind the age, places where there are no piers and where in stormy weather some of the small ferry boats are in danger. These are only a sample of the questions which I would like to bring to the notice of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in order that he may pass them on to the Minister of Transport, and I would especially commend him to draw the attention of the Director-General of Development, Admiral de Bartolomé, to the matter, so that his professional interest may be set going. These are questions that involve the comfort and welfare, and almost the existence, of a large section of the population of Scotland, and they cannot be neglected as they have been up to now.

Mr. INSKIP: The appeal which the hon. Member for the Western Isles has made, like that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, must, I am afriad, fall upon deaf ears, because if I interpret correctly the purport of the speech last night of the. Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, it was that the Ministry of Transport takes a benevolent interest in all that goes on on the railways, but never presumes to interfere or to suggest any improvement in the way in which the railway companies carry on their business. The Parliamentary Secretary last night went so far as to say that it was a mistake on the part of people to think that the Ministry of Transport was attempting to regulate and control the internal management and working of the railways of this country. Probably a great many of us were under the impression that the Ministry was; taking a very close and intimate interest-in the regulation and control and the internal management and working of the railways. Now that we hear that the Ministry is not taking that part, I think the House is anxious to know what really is the work of the Ministry of Transport. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) last night intervened and asked what the Ministry of Transport did, and the Parliamentary Secretary replied: "I will deal with that before I sit down." We listened with great interest to hear the hon. Member deal with the matter. It is quite true that we had a recital of the very distinguished gentlemen who are in receipt of salaries varying from £3,000 to £5,000 a year in the Ministry of Transport, and were in-
formed what were the activities of these various gentlemen, who are distinguished and eminent in their particular line; but we had not a single word from the Parliamentary Secretary to inform the House as to what the Ministry is doing in that which was supposed to be the real work of the Ministry, namely, the reforming of the inland transport of the United Kingdom.
An hon. Member has pointed out the enormous expense of the Ministry of Transport, and that what we are voting to-day, £181,000, is only a very small part of that which we shall have to vote next year. It appears that even this sum does not represent the whole of the staff at the disposal of the Ministry, because the Parliamentary Secretary informed us that the Ministry works partly through the existing staffs of the railway companies and other transport organisations. We may, therefore, assume that he has at his disposal, not only the services of those directly employed in the Ministry, but the very large staffs of the railway companies, who, presumably, have to prepare, return and provide information for the Minister of Transport as they may be directed by him. What I want to get from the Parliamentary Secretary is some information as to the part which the Minister of Transport is playing in the internal management of the railway companies. Perhaps I may give an illustration of the difficulty of discovering who is responsible for these matters. Some time ago I was anxious, at the instance of a person interested in a very large wagon building concern, to discover who is responsible for the delay in placing orders with works which would be thrown idle if no orders were given for railway wagons. I was informed by the Ministry of Transport, in the most courteous manner possible, that the Ministry had no concern with these matters at all. Then I was informed by the railway company that the orders that the railway companies were prepared to give and the tenders had been submitted to the Ministry, and that no progress could be made. Those; orders, therefore, were approved by the Ministry of Transport. I find this is confirmed, because the Parliamentary Secretary said: "The railway companies place orders after consultation with the Ministry." I do not know what that means if it is not interference with the internal management of
that which is properly the business of the railway companies.
Does the Ministry interfere or not with the internal management of the railway companies? The sooner we understand and the country understands what is the truth, the sooner the country will be able to reform for itself the undoubted evils of the transport system. It is too notorious to require elaboration that the transport system is in a state of chaos. We do not blame the Ministry for it, but we do say that the Ministry should make it plain that it is not going to take any part in reforming these evils until the expiration of the two years which the Minister is given to think about the matter. If he proposes to do nothing at all, then the country will go to the railway companies and discover what the companies are doing to reform the evil. Unfortunately, we have not oven the opportunities of getting from the railway companies the information that we used to get. It used to be possible for the owner of a private wagon to make an enquiry from a company as to the destination of the wagon, where it was lying on demurrage, and when it was expected to return. Answers to these enquiries are now refused by the railway companies with the express approval of the Minister of Transport; he approves that officials of the railway companies should withhold information or refuse to make enquiries as to the transit of the wagons, on account of the additional work which it would throw upon the hardly pressed staffs of the companies. If there was not a Minister of Transport to back up the railway companies in that amazing refusal, no body of traders would stand it for a moment from a company. Private owners of wagons are in a state of confusion as to where they are with regard to the wagons. We were told this afternoon, and no doubt truly, that there was no pool of privately-owned wagons. What we want to know is what is the measure of control which the Ministry exercises in these matters?
I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure the House recognises to the full the heavy burden which he has taken upon himself in the absence of the Minister of Transport. But I am sure he will understand that the country and this House expect an explicit statement of what the Ministry is doing in such matters in so far as the internal
management of the companies is concerned. Is the Minister interfering or not? That is the question I want to put. If he is not interfering, does that mean that the railway companies are responsible to exactly the same extent as before the War for every mistake and all lack of proper management? If so, I shall expect that in future, when an hon. Member for Nottingham asks a question as to the closing of a railway exit at Nottingham Station, the Minister or his representative will give a reply that it has nothing on earth to do with him, and that the hon. Member had better apply to the Station master at Nottingham. The fact is that it is very difficult for us to discover from this Vote or from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary exactly what the Ministry is doing. That is my apology for intervening in this Debate. I feel that in some measure the House is responsible. We took the Ministry of Transport Bill on trust. We were told that great things would be done. It is not unnatural, when we see this enormous expenditure, and see very little done, though a great deal may have been begun, that we want to enquire what has been done. I should have liked to have seen some division of, these figures, showing the old work and the new work, that is to say, the transferred services and the new services. I should like to know how much of this expenditure is due to the work of the Board of Trade and other Departments and how much to the new activities of the Minister of Transport. Then we could gauge how far the Minister is intervening in the control and regulation of transport.
6.0 P.M.
I desire to call attention to one other matter which has been referred to, and that is the return of wagons from France up to the middle of last month. I would really like to get some information as to what is being done about these wagons. I understand that very large numbers, some thousands, have been sold to Belgium at a price of £30 each, delivered in Belgium, and that very much larger prices were offered by other countries, including Roumania. The hon. Gentleman told us last night that the Ministry had been stimulating the return of wagons from France. Can he tell us what is the stimulus he applies to the Disposals Board or whatever body is concerned? Is it the fact that wagons are
being sold to foreign countries, and is that being done as a piece of philanthropy or business? Is the hon. Gentleman able to tell us that we are getting all the wagons from abroad to which we are entitled, and that none are to be sold at any price. When he tells us that he is stimulating their return from abroad, we wish him God speed in that process, and we only hope that he will apply a more effective stimulus to secure the return of a larger number of wagons, The Parliamentary Secretary in his speech rather twitted the House in asking him to take over the canals. At any rate, that request showed a genuine belief in the powers he possesses and the goodwill which we suppose him to have in exercising those powers. I do not think he ought to have twitted the House or any Members who desired to see the canals taken over. The fact is that the canals are nobody's child. Moreover, the Minister has the advantage of an elaborate and exhaustive Report of a Commission on Canals, which sat for a long time, and yet, after six or eight months' reflection by the Ministry, the only child which is born is a Committee on this question of canals. That Committee has not yet been set up and the terms of reference have not been decided upon. When are we going to have the canals made use of in this country? If there is one matter which the Ministry could have taken up without treading on anybody's toes, it is that of the derelict canals. If these matters to which I have been referring, namely, the chaos on the railways, the return of railway wagons, and the proper use of the canals, appeared to be matters to which the Ministry have been attending, and as to which they had been exercising some proper powers of management, then the House would gladly pay £180,000 or £280,000. When we see these large salaries paid to gentlemen who, so far, appear to have done very little beyond on the old Departmental lines, then we begin to inquire whether they are not highly paid for the services they perform.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like an explanation with regard to a matter of war bonus mentioned in a footnote in this Estimate. It is very difficult to understand how much the actual salaries amount to because in the footnote it is pointed out that a great many of the larger salaries get a war bonus. If it
turns out that the giving of a war bonus brings these salaries down to an amount which is not larger than that paid for equal service in other Departments, I have nothing more to say. There are in this Estimate ten gentlemen on the permanent staff of the Ministry of Transport who are going to have over £2,000 per year. Before this Debate took place, I took the trouble to look up Whitaker in the library, and I find that there are only three other instances in the whole of the Government Departments, where civil servants are given more than £2,000 per year. One case is that of the Foreign Office where the Permanent Under-Secretary gets £2,500 per year. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury gets £2,500 per year, and the Parliamentary Counsel to the Treasury also gets £2,500 per year. In every other case, right through all the Government Departments, no other civil servant gets more than £2,000 per year, yet under this Vote there are no less than ten members of the staff of the Ministry of Transport who get over £2,000 per year each. I do not know what the war bonus amounts to, but I can hardly believe that it accounts for the amount over £2,000. In one case it is £2,800 per year and in another case £2,500 per year. If it really is the case that ten of the transport staff are getting these very much larger salaries than those received by other Departments of the State, then I am quite sure it will lead in future to a demand from those civil servants who do equally responsible work to have their salaries raised to like amounts.

Mr. NEAL: I do not think the footnote is very clearly worded, but the fact is that no war bonus is paid to these particular officials. The war bonus scale for civil servants, as I am informed, is at present a lump sum of £60 plus 30 per cent. of their salary not exceeding £500.

Mr. SEDDON: Who fixed the salaries?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The statement by the Parliamentary Secretary makes my case very much stronger. That means than ten of the transport staff are receiving far bigger salaries than the vast majority of civil servants.

Mr. NEAL: They do not receive the war bonus and other civil servants do.

Mr. SEDDON: Who fixed their salaries?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The fact that they are getting no war bonus may
reduce it to a certain extent, but it does not make all the difference. I am quite sure it will result in a demand from other people who have got tremendously important duties to perform. You have the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, the Permanent Under-Secretary to the Colonies and to the India Office, and the Secretary to the Post Office who do not, get over £2,000 per year, and I think it is rather hard, therefore, that in a now department very much higher salaries are to be given for work not more important or arduous.

Mr. F. C. THOMSON: In spite of the attitude of detachment assumed by the Parliamentary Secretary to questions about the improvement of railway service, I venture to put before him a concrete case which I submit requires immediate attention. For a long time the North of Scotland has been much hampered by the exceedingly slow service of the mail trains. Take my own constituency, the City of Aberdeen. The mails coming from the South are frequently not delivered until past mid-day, and the train going south leaves early in the afternoon, giving an extremely short period of time for business purposes between the arrival of the mail and its departure for the south. It is quite obvious that that is a severe handicap on people in business and trade in the North of Scotland. During the War those delays were absolutely necessary, but I think the time has come when the Minister should inquire and endeavour to see if at a very early date some considerable acceleration cannot be brought about. One has tried the Post Office again and again with this question, and one is told by them that it is a matter for the transport authorities. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not say that this is a question for another Department. I think he himself could do much to bring pressure to bear in this question as to which there has been a very long delay. He will recognise that it is very important, and I hope it will have his immediate attention.

Mr. LENG-STURROCK: It gives me great pleasure to support the appeal just made in respect of the postal service on the East coast. The conditions in my own constituency (Montrose Burghs) are very similar to those which he describes. I go beyond that one complaint and ask the
Parliamentary Secretary to enter rather more fully into the question of the exact control which the Ministry exercises over the railway service in the country. Having listened to the interesting speech he made last night, and having read it carefully to-day, I think it does leave some room for doubt as to the exact functions which the Ministry exercises. I do not speak as a critic of the Ministry but rather as a friend. The present conditions which prevail in most parts of the country, not only on the industrial side but also on the passenger side, are being attributed by the railway companies themselves as largely due to Government interference. I supported the establishment of the Ministry of Transport. To-day I have listened to Member after Member who opposed the establishment of the Ministry getting up and making most elaborate criticisms of the results. I submit that that is perfectly unreasonable. They disliked the idea of the Ministry from the beginning, and now to-day, some seven or eight months after it has been set going, they rise and they point to the size of the salaries paid and other costs incurred by the Ministry and say, "What have you got to show for it?" The thing is preposterous, and yet they pose as business men. They know-that in their own business they might have gone in for a large expenditure, but they would not expect their shareholders to come and tackle them within a year and say, "What have you secured for all that large expenditure? I hope that the Committee will give the Ministry every chance to carry out its elaborate programme. It is the biggest scheme which the Government has embarked on, and whether it be the question of canals or anything else I am perfectly confident of the future of the Ministry if it is given fair play and not constantly subjected to niggling and nagging criticism. I trust that the Committee will press for the Ministry developing its full powers, and that is why I rose. Having knowledge of many local complaints as regards the railway service, the treatment of season ticket holders, and the inadequacy of many of the arrangements made, I wish to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to use his full powers in looking after the railway companies and in giving them all the stimulus they need in order to get back, not only to pre-war conditions, but,
I sincerely hope, to something better than pre-war conditions.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I wish to raise a question which has not been dealt with so far, and that is the question of the congestion at the London Docks. I am fortified in my belief that it may be possible to obtain some answer from the Parliamentary Secretary as to what steps are being taken by the Ministry to enquire into and deal with the existing situation by the fact that yesterday afternoon the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell), in speaking about a Motion which he had on the Paper relating to this question, was told by the Leader of the House that as the Ministry of Transport Vote was coming on he would have an opportunity of raising the question then, and that the Ministry of Transport would be glad to receive any suggestions that he liked to make. I have no suggestions to make, but I think the Committee and the country are entitled to hear from the Ministry if any, and, if so, what steps are being taken to deal with the very serious state of affairs existing, not only in the London Docks, but also in other ports of the country. Yesterday, in his amazing speech—I use the word because I think the Committee and the country were amazed to hear that the Ministry of Transport was not really interfering or dealing with the administration of railway affairs and that, in fact, it was only at present considering all the aspects of the transport question—in that speech the Parliamentary Secretary said the Development Department was the Department which was dealing with the question of docks. I do not know whether that is the Department which deals with the London Docks, but, if so, I suggest that instead of having only a director-general and three assistant-directors, instead of this being an expensive staff, that staff is not nearly large enough to deal with the problem. At the present time the congestion in the London Docks is extremely serious. It was publicly stated to be so last week by the Chairman of the Port of London Authority, who gave numerous illustrations, not only of how many months' supply of meat were in the country, but of how many more months' supply were actually on the water, and altogether I thing something between seven and nine months' supply were in sight or coming
to the docks. He mentioned the congestion in the wool imports at the London Docks, and also the question of tea, and he put the blame principally on the Ministry of Shipping, but other people put it on the railways, and I believe that in Ministry of Shipping circles the opinion is expressed that it is entirely the fault of the Ministry of Food, or, on the other hand, of the Ministry of Transport.
It seems to be a sort of triangular duel between the great public Departments, and nothing is being done in the meantime to clear the situation. There are ships arriving in the Thames and waiting for a very long time, and I know of one case where a big Atlantic liner arrived on December 24th last and lay in the Thames for two solid months without being unloaded. That is going on, not only in the case of one ship but of many ships, and the resultant loss in demurrage and so on, and in the working of these steamers, is, of course, adding to the cost of goods, and is a very large contributing factor to the rising tide of high prices. Therefore, it is a matter which ought to be dealt with immediately, if possible, by the Government, and steps ought to be taken to improve the situation. The Port of London Authority are not able to do it by themselves, and I think the Committee will support me in suggesting that it is a question for the Ministry of Transport to deal with, and that when we have a concentration of cerebral power like that mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary last night as the Heads of these various Departments—some of the cleverest men at this sort of problem in the country—all assembled in the Ministry of Transport, the country will expect them to deal with this matter as speedily as possible. The question is one which does not only affect the rise in the price of food in every direction, but by tying up shipping in this way it is increasing the difficulties of getting supplies from New Zealand and Australia, which, in its turn, sends up the rate of exchange with America. In addition to that, it is hampering the desire of tens of thousands of people who wish to emigrate to the Dominions of the Empire after this War. When you think that one great Atlantic liner can be held up for two months, and I believe there are other ships which will be held up for three months—I heard the other day that
a tea ship was to be held up for three months, either in the Thames or some other port—and that these ships are held up instead of making two or throe trips across the ocean, thereby increasing freights and prices all round, I suggest that the Ministry of Transport is the Ministry which ought to deal with this matter, and I trust the Under-Secretary will give us some assurance that it is being dealt with.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move "That Item A [Salaries, Wages, and Allowances, £125,324] be reduced by £100."
As these Supplementary Estimates come one by one before the Committee, I think I am voicing the opinion of the majority of the members of the Committee when I say that we become more and more appalled by the extravagance of the Government Departments. Take, for in stance, this Estimate which is now before the Committee. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who laid the Estimate before the Committee, has my sympathy because he is discharging a very difficult duty in the absence of his chief, and it is extremely regrettable that his chief cannot be here.

Mr. STEVENS: Why not?

Sir D. MACLEAN: He is ill.

Mr. STEVENS: Playing golf!

Sir D. MACLEAN: I understand he is ill and unable to be present, and I cannot imagine anything more unfortunate than that we should not have the opportunity of knowing what is the policy of the Ministry. I understand from my hon. Friend that what he has said his chief would have said. My hon. Friend said:
I pass on to say that the Minister himself is earnestly and diligently pursuing the major task given to him—I think it is a responsibility in which he is entitled to ask that he should have sympathetic consideration—in reference to the advice which he should ultimately give as to what shall be the future policy with reference to these great undertakings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1920; col. 1,229, vol. 126.]
I should have thought it would have been quite sufficient for the Ministry in charge of this great matter to have surrounded himself by export opinion, which could sit and consider, in the necessary seclusion, these great problems; but what has he done? He has established a great Department, having 11 sub-Departments,
of which 7, I think, have each a Director-General and appropriate subordinate officials, and the whole thing comes for some months to an expenditure of £186,000. What does that policy mean? It either means that they are going to take over control of the railways and meet all defects as far as they can—and complaints pour in upon them hour after hour and day after day—or they are going in for a big policy of railway nationalisation. As to the first, the answer given by my hon. Friend, who is very frank, is this. He says that if hon. Members think they are going to get a rectification of their complaints by writing to the Ministry, they have sent their letters to the wrong address, and that they should do what they have done before, and that is, send them to the railway companies. A more preposterous statement was never laid before a business assembly than that with this huge expenditure my hon. Friend comes down here and says the major duty of the Ministry is to consider what their policy shall be. If the policy is to be one of nationalisation, I understand it, but if, on the other hand, it is not to be, why set up these huge Departments, clamping their tentacles on to the surface of our national life, only to be released at immense national expense?
I really think that here is the clearest example which has yet come before us of the utter incompetence of this Government to deal with these problems. It is drifting about from side to side; its only remedy is to set up a new Department, and here it is. Could anybody dare to put before the shareholders in any business undertaking such a statement? They would change the Board at once, and with the assent of the whole of the commercial community interested in that concern. I regret again that there has not been an opportunity of having the, Minister to speak for himself on this matter. Hopes were raised. I voted for and supported this Bill in the belief that it was going to do something speedily, not at some distant date, more than having a very expensive consultative Committee to talk these things over with railway managers, and the answer is, "Do not come to us; go direct to the railways as you used to do." The whole thing seems to me to be this, nothing but interference with the railway companies in doing the work they best understand at a huge expenditure to the
taxpayer. If the policy is going to be a sound one, they could come down here with complete confidence, but there is no policy, and because of that there has been, I think, not a single speech other than a complaint of this gross extravagance. I am sure the Members of the Committee feel so strongly about this that I move a reduction.

Mr. STEVENS: About eighteen months ago the Prime Minister woke up to the fact that transport was one of the most important matters to be considered in the reconstruction of the country, and he chose, to take hold of that matter, a gentleman whom I considered, and still consider, if he will only do the work, the best man in the country for the job. What has he done in the eighteen months? Because it is not only from the time that the Ministry was established, but for eight or nine months prior to that, as Minister-Designate, that this right hon. Gentleman was charged by the Government with looking after and providing for the transport of the country. Now we find, as I understand from what my hon. Friend has stated to the House, that the duty of the right hon. Gentleman is to wait and see—to wait until two years have expired, and then to do something, meantime at an expenditure of a sum as great as that which we are discussing. What he ought to have done—and I want to know to what extent he has done it—was to provide for co-ordination amongst the Government Departments in the matter of transport. I feel quite sure that the Committee do not realise the amount of expenditure which is being made by each of these Departments. The Ministry of Food has its Department of Transport, the War Office has, the Ministry of Munitions has, and so on throughout the whole of the Departments, and they are reduced now to finding opportunities for interfering one with the other, and, in doing that, bringing about, to a very great extent, this congestion from which the country is suffering.
Is the Minister of Transport responsible in any way for what is transpiring throughout the country? I leave the question of congestion at the ports, which I had hoped to deal with this evening, because there is no one present on the Front Bench who is capable of dealing with it or answering questions. But, taking the Minister of Transport by himself,
to what extent has he helped us on the coal question? The Coal Controller, very rightly from the knowledge which he has obtained as to the different qualities of coal—he began by showing what we all learned at school, that the best coal for gas came from Newcastle, and the best coal for steam purposes came from South Wales, and so on, graduating throughout the country the relative merits of the Lancashire coal,. Staffordshire coal, Forest of Dean coal, and so—sat down in his office and allocated to the different purposes the particular coal best suited for such purposes. Where was the Minister of Transport? Why has all this difficulty arisen about the lack of coal in different districts? Is it not because the Minister of Transport has not taken the place he should occupy in that matter? Is he not leaving it all to the railway companies, who have their own particular interests, and who, when they are working, are working in competition one against the other, because they have no idea at all as to their future? What about the useless traffic which is passing across the railways of the country—useless in the sense that it is absolutely unnecessary? Look at the cargoes of wood pulp, for instance, which are being landed at East Coast ports and ports in the possession of the Minister of Transport.

Mr. NEAL: Which ports?

Mr. STEVENS: Immingham and Hull, which are in the possession of the Minister of Transport. Cargoes have been landed there, consigned to paper works on the West Coast, which have their discharge berths and which could take those cargoes, and yet they are taken across the country. Why? Because the Coal Controller is charging approximately £5 per ton extra for bunker coal to those steamers if they go to the West Coast instead of taking their bunker coal on the East Coast. The same thing, only to a greater extent, in regard to tens of thousands of tons of Swedish ore which are being taken across the country. Why have we to mention this? It is one of those things for which the Minister of Transport was appointed. Take other matters, as to which I have a great number of instances, but I will only use one or two. I use one as a challenge. The Ordnance Department of the War Office, in this time of stress in transport and want of railway rolling stock, are carrying from one store to another in
different parts of the country. The particular case I have in my mind concerns blankets. During the last few weeks they have shifted rather more than a million blankets out of one store at Manchester to other stores in different parts of the country, amongst them to Liverpool—from stores in Manchester, where they were well stored, to Liverpool, where all this congestion is taking place, and where it is impossible to obtain facilities in warehouses. What I have done in that case is this. It so happens that the store from which those blankets are going I am very directly connected with. I saw this going on yesterday, and this is a challenge to the Secretary of State for War, as the Minister of Transport said he is not concerned in it. I have stopped those blankets—I have no right to do it—from being taken out of my warehouse, and carried on the railway to Liverpool at the present time, and I do not propose that they shall go forward until I hear from the Minister of Transport that he is satisfied that, in the interests of the public, it is desirable that they should pass. I do that with some diffidence, because I know at Woolwich, for instance, my friend General Butcher, who is the Head of the Department, will be very irate about it. But that Department owes to the owner of these warehouses a very great deal for the avoidance of congestion by the warehouses provided. Now the boot is on the other leg. In the time of war these Government Departments used to come along and say, "I commandeer that warehouse," and we had to give way. To-day there is no necessity at all, so far as I am aware—and I am sure this Committee will bear me out—for the Secretary of State for War to be taking his traffic from one warehouse to another in different parts of the country.
Then there is a question for which the Minister of Transport is absolutely responsible—the pooling of wagons. It took us during the War more than twelve months to get the railway companies to see the advantage of pooling their railway wagons, and it was never wholly completed, and now I gather the Minister is letting them go back to the old conditions. The thing is preposterous in the light of the fact that these railway companies do not know what is going to happen in the future, and all working one against the
other. The proper thing to do is so obvious that it should have been done from the first. It is for the Minister of Transport to take over, as he has full powers to do, every one of these railway wagons, place them under the management of a man who thoroughly understands the question, like one of the goods managers taken from one of the big railway companies, and let the Minister be responsible to the railway companies on the one hand and the country on the other as to the best manipulation of these railway wagons. Then the question has been raised, I believe, once or twice in the House by way of question as to some eight hundred 20-ton brake vans which have been built since the Armistice—and I do not think the building is yet completed—to the requirements of the French railways by our English makers, and so preventing, if nothing else, other wagons being built. There was no necessity at all for the other wagons to be built if these had been slightly altered to meet the circumstances. The only way in which they do not meet the requirements of the English companies is that the ridge of the roof extends some. 2½ inches on the side, and, as regards a very few tunnels in the country, it is not that they cannot go through these tunnels, for they can, but it might not be safe to allow them to go through, because they are just outside the gauge. I pass about a hundred of them every morning when I am at Manchester, and I have done so for months and months. I appealed to the, right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, and asked him about them. "Nothing to do with me," he said, "They belong to the War Department." "Nothing to do with you!" I said, and I think he saw that it was rather a mistake to have said that, because he took a note of the matter, and said he would inquire into it. He has inquired into it. With what result? I ask that they might be used only temporarily, and if only locally, for dealing with the trade requirements of the country. One hundred of them have been taken away by the Great Western Company and run without alteration. I purchased ten of them for cold storage and refrigerating processes. The word I got from the Ministry of Transport was, that after making full inquiries they found that the wagons had been sold to Poland,
and they could not be used temporarily by anyone in this country. These wagons took up valuable railway sidings. They could have been used month in and month out for six months. Anyone who knows the conditions of sending traffic from here to Poland knows perfectly well that as regards the major portion of these wagons they could have been used for months before there was any chance of shipping them. Yet our Ministry of Transport deals with the matter in that way.
7.0 P.M.
Let me come to the congestion at the Port of London. The Ministry is in possession of the. Port of London. Who is to be responsible to us for the Port of London except the Minister of Transport, who is in possession of it. The congestion of the Ports of London and Liverpool is absolutely monstrous. It is due to certain circumstances—amongst them two. One is the slow rate at which the work is being done; the other, and the main one, is due to the lack of co-ordination between the different Government Departments—absolutely so! That can be proved. If I had anyone here to prove it to, I would prove it as regard wool, grain, sugar, tobacco, and other commodities with which I am familiar. I do not mean in this that the particular Departments are to blame. I know, as a matter of fact, from my own knowledge, that there is no blame on the part of the Wool Committee. It is in the hands of business men, and is being properly dealt with. But the Transport Department is probably getting too much wool, as also is the Department which purchased the grain for the country. They are getting too much, and ousting some of the others. So it goes on from Department to Department. I think anyone with any practical knowledge of the matter must have been stirred at the little or no assistance given by the Ministry of Transport, and the little assistance, it seems to me, that this House is ever likely to get out of that Department. I do not want to be personal in what I am saying, but if I am personal to any extent it is because the circumstances warrant it. The Minister of Transport has, I under stand, been told by his medical adviser that he requires a little relaxation, and that if he does not get it he might break down.

Mr. NEAL: That is not what he was told!

Mr. STEVENS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me before I go on exactly how the thing stands? I do not want to make any statement that is not borne out by facts, but I think I can prove, if my evidence be correct, that the right hon. Gentleman is playing "ca'canny" as much as any docker in the country! I am not saying this against him personally, but I want to show this: that this "ca'cannyism," which we here complain about amongst the dockers, goes right through the whole of us. We are all suffering from it in a greater or less degree. The men who suffer most from it are those who were most active during the War. There was no one more active than the right hon. Gentleman. Every active Member of this House, and outside, when he consults his medical man is in the habit of being told that he must slow down. I do not blame anyone for this. I myself have consulted my fourth medical man in forty years, and the first three have died. Hardly a year have I gone to my medical man for examination, but that he has told me that I must slow down. I hope I will not be misunderstood. But I feel that the conditions are so desperate that it is necessary for me to say what I am saying. The right hon. Gentleman can be compared now with the "ca'canny" docker. When he same back from active service what was the first thing he did—to look after his pension? His first object was his pension. As an hon. Member suggested just now, it would be immaterial what the amount of the pension was if this country was not paying it.

Mr. NEAL: No, certainly not!

Mr. STEVENS: I understood we were paying the dividend of the North-Eastern Railway Company during the past years, and I thought, if we were paying that, we would be paying the other. But if my hon. Friend tells me no, well and good. He looked after his pension. Quite right! I am not complaining about that. He has gone off and has had a most enjoyable time. He appointed these Ministers whose fees we are now asked to pass. This is what I want to ask my hon. Friend. Has he considered the number of Transport Departments already in operation with the different Ministers, and why, has he taken so many of his leaders from the North-East Coast and outside the other Departments? We have
heard—I believe I am correct in this—if not, my hon. Friend will put me right—that at this time—yesterday or to-day—the right hon. Gentleman is enjoying himself at a game of golf. My hon. Friend does not say, "No." Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman, under circumstances such as these, be in his place in the House? He could still have his game of golf. There happens to be more than one golf-course in the country. I understand he is not very far from London. I am making an attack. I am sorry I have to make it. I did not mean to make it, but I am here in the interests of those who sent me, and the country, and I think I am fully justified in raising the matter, for it is necessary to face the difficulty we are placed in, in respect of transport. Does the hon. Gentleman know how great are these difficulties? They certainly justify me making an attack upon the Minister. All I am saying is not personal, or not necessarily personal, to the Minister. But I say, with many others, that he is playing the game of "ca'canny" as much as any docker in the country. And that reminds me of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches. They were responsible, more than anybody in this House, either on the Government or any other side, for the Transport Act as we have it now.

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: They not set the. Minister on, anyhow!

Mr. STEVENS: Some of us tried very hard to make the Act more practical. Every time we were, met by my hon. Friends voting against us. Here is the position to-day. What is the country going to do during the next eighteen months? If, as we understand from the hon. Member who represents the Ministry, the Minister is thinking out the question of transport as it affects the future of the railways, at any rate for two years during the period of the Act; then he is going to report. What is going to happen if he does not take up the co-ordination of the various Departments and deal with the reconstruction work which is so badly needed in the country?

Mr. PRETYMAN: I want to raise a definite point which I think is of some importance, and that is the extraordinary difficulty which is found in the Eastern counties—I speak particularly of Lincolnshire, Suffolk, Essex and Cambridge, and indeed of all that district—in obtaining
road material. The matter is a very serious one, because there is no local road material available of any kind. There is no stone in that part of the country, and we are entirely dependent for our road material from either seaborne granite which comes mainly from Guernsey, or railway-borne granite which comes from Leicestershire. The reason why the roads are now in such a very serious condition is because, in order to relieve the congestion of the railway traffic, the Ministry placed at the disposal of the railway companies and others thousands of heavy motor lorries, which have been running along the road in enormous numbers. As the roads were never built to stand that kind of traffic, and no material is available for repair, the condition of most of the roads has become so bad that they are really not fit to carry ordinary traffic. Great damage is done to the vehicles which traverse them.
I have had some correspondence with the Ministry on this point at the request of the local authorities in Essex, Suffolk and Lincolnshire. I admit the Ministry have done their best to meet the difficulty. So far as I understand, they have not ignored the representations which have been made to them. But it is quite clear that the natural avenue of supplies for that district is by sea, not land. The railways are congested. May I here say that before the War practically the whole of the supplies of granite came by sea to the district. In those days the rates by sea were about half the railway rates; therefore the traffic naturally followed the cheapest and most convenient line. Now the situation is reversed. The freightage by sea enormously exceeds the railway rates. The ratepayers are already overburdened, and find it practically impossible to pay the rates required. The Ministry of Transport have, however, in view of the congestion on the railways, issued a Regulation that the bulk of this district is to be supplied by sea with its road material. That throws the most of the burden of the cost upon the ratepayers. The result, in the first instance, was that no material was available at all. The roads are simply becoming impassable. What has now happened is that the Ministry, in view of certain representations, have by some means, in conjunction with the Ministry of Shipping, and this is a
matter which concerns both Ministries and probably the latter more than the former, though it is in order to raise it on this Vote. By an arrangement with the Ministry of Shipping, the Ministry of Transport have procured a few vessels to bring granite from Guernsey to the sea coast. But such conditions are imposed in the freightage of these vessels that the arrangement is practically inoperative. I hope the Ministry of Transport will take this matter seriously in hand, and make representations to the Ministry of Shipping that these charter parties should be amended. The point is that although the rates for these freights are regulated on a not unreasonable basis, I think 15s. per ton is the ordinary rate now imposed from Guernsey to the East coast ports where this granite is landed, there is a condition imposed that only 84 running hours are allowed for the loading and unloading of these ships. The consequence of this is that transport becomes impossible, because if a ship arrives on the East coast with a cargo on, say, a Friday afternoon tide, there will only be the Saturday morning working hours available until Monday. But the time will be running on during, the whole period, and every hour that the ship remains in the dock or the port over the 84 running hours, a rate of 2s. a ton for the tonnage of the ship will be charged against the County Council or local authority responsible for ordering the stone. This is really an impossible situation. These rates in elude both the loading and the unloading, and it is quite obvious that according to the hour at which the ship arrives, and according to the tide, those hours will begin to run entirely without reference to the hours which will really be available for unloading the vessel. I beg the Ministry of Transport to pay serious attention to the matter, because the whole of the traffic of the country is becoming disorganised by the condition in which these roads are. They are getting worse day by day. The Minister has already taken steps to place ships at our disposal, and I hope he will approach the Ministry of Shipping to make those vessels effective, and to ensure that the basis of the charter of the vessels and the question of demurrage shall no longer be settled on running hours, but on the very much less number of working hours from the time when the ship arrives in the docks. The matter is solely one of transport and
rates, and I hope the Ministry will make the necessary change, and secure to the Eastern part of England the roads they must have if our communications are to be maintained

Mr. NEAL: It will possibly meet the convenience of the Committee if I take this opportunity of dealing with many of the points raised in the course of an extremely interesting Debate. First of all, I should like to thank, with great sincerity, my hon. Friends who have with such generosity referred to me personally. I will deal at once with the most regrettable and, as I think, unfortunate outburst by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stevens), who, in his dislike for the Ministry of Transport, which was manifested on the Committee stage of the Bill, has thought it; right to make a personal attack on the Minister himself. The Minister, as I have explained several times, has been ordered away by his medical adviser for very adequate and sufficient reasons, and I hope he may avert a very serious threatened breakdown. More than that I decline to say in answer to the hon. Member for Eccles, but it is a very poor reward for public service, rendered through the strain and stress of war time and the difficult times of reconstruction, to know that you are liable to an attack of this description, to which I feel every Member of the Committer listened with deep regret. I pass at once to deal with the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh. With reference to the scrapping of the Department, the hon. Member challenged our figures as to the number of the staff. I said it was 774, and that figure was correct. On page 75 there is a total given of 714; the Irish Branch adds to that a total of 44—that appears on page 76; and if my hon. Friends will look at page 73, Sub-section (3), Development Department, he will see "Clerical Assistance to Area Transport Commissioners and Foreign Intelligence Officer," without a number, but with the money carried out—£660. That represents 16, and makes the 774, of which I spoke. In reply to the queries of my hon. Friend in reference to salaries, I do not think any very exact comparison can be made with any other Department. If such an exact comparison could have been properly made, I think the Treasury, under whose sanction these appointments are made, would have been likely to have
dealt with that in a somewhat different manner from that which they have. The power to appoint the staff is given by Section 25 of the Statute to the Minister, with the sanction of the Treasury. The Solicitor is also the Secretary There is no other instance, I think, in a Government Department where these two important offices are blended. My hon. Friend asked me about the Assistant Solicitor, and why he got £240 special allowance. He has been engaged—I do not know whether temporarily or permanently, but I think temporarily—from the staff of the London and South Western Railway. He has special experience of legal matters affecting railways; he is losing an opportunity of promotion, and the Treasury has sanctioned the extra allowance. The director who is mentioned under Letter G. is a Mr. Pike, whom we were able to secure with very great advantage to the Ministry as an expert on railway rates questions, and a special allowance was sanctioned to him because of that.

Mr. HOGGE: Why is it personal?

Mr. NEAL: Because it is not intended to stereotype this salary. This gentleman, who has special knowledge and experience in these matters, and it is not intended that his successor should necessarily carry this extra allowance of £300. I have been asked why Sir Philip Nash is not pensioned. This is a matter of arrangement, and was taken into account it is not certain that he will remain permanently on the civil staff of the State. I was asked why the Chief Executive Officer lost his Army pay. This gallant gentleman was one of the transfers to the Ministry from the Board of Trade, and we have continued the arrangements made before. I was asked as to the temporary Commissioner having a special allowance of £250. The answer is that this gentleman's appointment is believed to be merely temporary until a permanent successor can be found. The question of wages of the cleaners was raised. In addition to the wages which appear, and which are the ordinary wages paid, they receive a war bonus.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How much?

Mr. NEAL: I cannot tell you the exact amount. I was asked why there was a difference between the superintendents and the ordinary typists to the apparent
disadvantage to the superintendents. The superintendents receive a war bonus and the others do not.

The next question was with reference to the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and I accept at once the criticism that I used an unfortunate word when I said, that that Advisory Committee was operating under the Development Department. It is one of those words which is true in one sense, yet is not apt in conveying a correct meaning in another. So far as the Ministry of Transport is concerned, the officer who serves on that Committee is Sir Charles de Bartolomé. He is the liaison officer between that Committee and the Ministry. It is only in that sense we are operating. Of course, it is quite plain that no Committee presided over by a gentleman like my hon. Friend would willingly submit to anything but the most perfect independence and freedom. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh asked whether there was not some discrepancy in my speech with reference to the way in which the Minister was dealing with the railway companies, and a specific instance was put to me whore it was thought there was a contra diction in what I had said to the Committee. I was asked, "Why does the Minister approve the placing of wagon orders if he is not actively concerned himself in the close and detailed and internal management of the railway companies?" The answer is a financial one. Under the terms of the financial arrangements between the Ministry and the railway companies, any excess cost above normal which they now have to pay for building railway wagons, either themselves or by outside contractors, is charged upon State funds, and seeing that the taxpayer has to pay ultimately in the account that difference, I think the Committee will agree that it would be highly improper, unless the Minister through his financial department did take some careful oversight of the prices at which these contracts are placed. My hon. Friend called my attention to the question of coastal traffic on the west coast of Scotland, and that was reinforced by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray), who, perfectly legitimately, indicated that he thought I had not fully appreciated the point he had in mind, which was, not coatswise traffic, but coastal services. May I deal with that
once and for all? I think some other hon. Member—I believe it was the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Leng-Sturrock)—also called my attention to it. We do realise to the fullest extent the difficulties of transit and transport between those detached parts of the country. Let me just point out to my hon. Friend exactly what power the Minister has for dealing with transport of that character. He does not control the present shipping facilities. He is not in any sense interfering with those facilities. I believe that they are all too limited, that they were not adequate before the War, and that they have been decreased lately. That creates a very serious problem for the citizens who live in those places. I think that the cause of the mischief is the general shortage of shipping, and the diversion of some of the ships to other services. That is not a matter with which the Minister of Transport can deal. His powers for dealing with this matter are under Section 9 of the Transport Act, under which the Minister has power to establish, either himself or through other persons, transport services by land or water. I think I may fairly claim that it is a little too soon to expect the Minister of Transport—who has been engaged in building up the organisation of his Ministry, which has received some criticism to-day—to solve the problem as to whether he shall ask Parliament: to Vote the necessary money for the establishment of a coastal line of steamers to this and other detached portions of the country. That matter, however, is not being lost sight of; I am glad to say that my genial and hon. Friend will never let us lose sight of it. What he has said on that matter shall receive further consideration, and if in any way possible we can help the very obvious and legitimate requirements of the district that he represents, it will afford me very great pleasure to be able to do so.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman say, before he sits down, what progress has been made with regard to the question of the Crinan Canal, or the alternative scheme of Tarbert, Loch Fyne?

Mr. NEAL: No conclusion has been arrived at. Two matters are involved. One is the widening of the Crinan Canal, which some people advocate, and the other is the scrapping of the Crinan Canal
and the cutting of another waterway. I have had the papers before me within the last three days, and the matter is receiving as speedy consideration as the circumstances permit. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) called attention to a later Vote with reference to the railway strike. I do not think I should be usefully occupying the time of the Committee, if he will forgive me for saying so, by attempting a discussion of the economic and social conditions which brought about the railway strike, or by any attempt to apportion the blame for that strike. So far as the Minister of Transport is concerned, that strike exactly concurred in point of time with his appointment. The very day the Minister of Transport took over his duties, that day the railway strike came. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That was perhaps not an unmerited cheer. It was not a very happy time, but there are many unhappy beginnings which have fortunate endings, and I think this was one. When the Minister set himself to work, with, the good will and co-operation of the leaders of the railwaymen, to make such a state of things unlikely, if not impossible, he was taking the step of securing that good should result from evil.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East St. Pancras (Mr. Hopkins) raised the topic, which was also, I think, mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip), of railway wagons which are privately owned. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras had been misinformed as to the facts. As I intimated to him, there has not been a, pool of privately owned wagons at any time, so far as my information goes, certainly not during the existence of the Ministry of Transport. What there was at one time was an Operating Order, made under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations by the Board of Trade, whose powers came over to the Ministry of Transport, whereby what was commonly called "back loading" was possible. That led to a great deal of trouble with regard to privately owned wagons It was one of those remedies which seemed quite reasonable and proper to apply, and, indeed, commended itself to many people. Stated shortly, it was this. A privately owned wagon was sent loaded with, say, coal from A to B, and the railway authorities at B were given the power to load it up again with some other
merchandise and send it back to A, and so prevent empty running. It seems a very easy and simple course to adopt, but what happened? In practice there was not the return traffic from B to A, and the wagon was held up at B until the station-master could find out whether there was something he could send back to A. That caused an initial delay. Then he discovered that there was nothing to send back, but there was an empty wagon. What he did was to send it to C; he sent it off to some other place which might be in the direction of B. There again the stationmaster looked at it, and said: "Here is a wagon—good luck.! I will load it up"; and he sent it on. The result was that the wagon fell into the general flow of traffic, and the unfortunate private owner did not get it back, and began to make the enquiries of which my hon. and learned Friend has spoken, but with very little result. When the whole shortage became acute, a month or two ago, the Coal Controller represented to the Minister of Transport that this back loading Order was operating most in-auspiciously from his point of view, and that the colliery companies and other persons were not getting their wagons back; and the Minister of Transport suspended the operation of that Order. What was the result? In the same day, in one envelope, from an hon. Member of this House, I received two letters from his constituents. One complained most bitterly that he had been in the habit of loading up his coal wagons and sending them back, and that now the wretched Minister of Transport would not allow him to do it; while the other complained in exactly the opposite sense, not knowing of the suspension of the operation of the Order, that a certain person never could get the use of his own wagons. It is one of those cases which illustrate very clearly that, when you set out to endeavour to darn a hole, you very often stretch the cloth and make another hole. That, I think, is really the case with reference to some of the attempts, which seem quite plausible and reasonable at the time, to deal with difficulties.
There is one other matter which I ought to mention. There is, I think, power to-day, under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations, to commandeer privately owned wagons; that is to say, in time of emergency, they may be taken
over and put into general traffic. That has been exercised twice by the Minister of Transport at the request of the Coal Controller. I have not the precise figures, but my figures are substantially accurate. It was done once in January, to the extent of 1,700 wagons, and once in February, to the extent of just over 2,000 wagons—something under 4,000 wagons all told, out of a total of privately owned wagon stock in this country which is anything between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000. There has, therefore, been no interference worthy of the name by the Minister of Transport with the user of wagons of private owners; but there is delay. The Midland Railway Company reported to us that on one day they had on their line, blocking their sidings and other roads, between 4,000 and 5,000 privately owned wagons, which the owners were not prepared to take within the gates of their own places or within their own sidings, and which they were not ready to load up again. I do not intend to attempt to deal at greater length with the question of privately owned railway wagons.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) spoke of the condition of difficulty with reference to the ironworks on the North-East Coast. That matter has been raised in this House many times, and I make no complaint of it. It has been raised by question and answer, and it has been raised by my hon. Friend and his colleagues by correspondence with the Ministry. We have many times sent special inspectors up to the North-East Coast to see what can be done to relieve that question, and I think my hon. Friends who represent that district will at least acquit the Minister of Transport of any part at all in the causes which have operated to bring about the trouble of which they complain, or of failure to use all the powers at his disposal in order to relieve it. The form of traffic of which they speak can be dealt with, as to a good deal of it, by sea. I am not at all sure that the manufacturers of the district have not been a little chary of paying the extra cost of sea traffic as against subsidised railway traffic, and I think that that may explain a little of the difficulty. But there is another point. The type of wagon which is required for this particular traffic is called a bolster wagon, and there
is a shortage of those wagons. The North-Eastern Railway Company have orders-placed for 900 of them, and we have given instructions for a survey to be made to see whether there are any other wagons of that description which other companies can part with. We have done and are doing, all that can be done to deal with that particular question. It is constantly urged upon us that, wherever it is possible, the three-shift system of working the railways shall be adopted; but it is not always possible, nor, if it were possible, would it always afford a remedy. The three-shift system, working at the point of origin, if I may so call it, is useless if the traffic is blocked because there is not a three-shift system working, at some intermediate place, or if the receiving station is not ready to receive the goods. My hon. Friend, the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne), spoke about the railway companies—to use his own phrase—being hung up by the Ministry. All I can say to hon. Members of this house is, that if they have any complaints of that description, where a railway company alleges that it is being in any way hampered in the performance of its duties by any act of any servant of the Ministry, I very specially request that the fact may be communicated to the Minister of Transport, in order that the matter may receive investigation, and the hon. Member informed with perfect frankness of the measures that are being taken. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Sexton) I think was not quite up to date with his facts. He was accurate when he said that the effect of subsidising the railway traffic was to put an embargo upon coastwise and canal traffic. But one of the first things the Minister of Transport did—and I suggest he is entitled to some credit for it—was to take the necessary steps to prevent the railway traffic being subsidised so as to secure that the rates should be lifted up—not to an excessive point—they are still below the transport rates of other lands—so that there should be something like-correspondence between the railway cost of working and the sum paid by traders, for these services. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) made fun of that. He said: "You talk about stopping a leak; but what you are doing is to make the trader pay. You are stopping no leak; you are still collecting.
£50,000,000 from somebody." Surely my hon. Friend understands the difference in essence between asking that these services shall be made self-supporting, as they must be if this country is ever to resume its economic position, or whether they shall be subsidised by the State to the extent of £50,000,000.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The object was to give effect to economy by economy, and to do good to the country. Any business house could have made the sum up by adding to the prices.

Mr. NEAL: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the point which I made. The point is that, for this country to have gone right through the War without any attempt being made at all to stop the railway companies of this country being a charge on the taxpayer, was wrong economically. Does my hon. Friend dispute that in raising the railway charges to the amount that is necessary in order to make them pay we have done anything wrong? Does my right hon. Friend think that either of these things is inconsistent with economy?

Mr. BALFOUR: No. But we do not require to establish a Ministry of Transport to fix the additional rate.

Mr. NEAL: I call attention to the fact that, right through the possession of the railways by the country, from the 4th August, 1914, until the year 1920, when the Ministry of Transport exercised these powers, no step was taken, and it was the action of the Ministry of Transport in setting up the Railway Rates Advisory Committee, and giving them a reference which produced a speedy report, and adopting that reference in its entirety, which produced the result of which I just now spoke. Then the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Nottingham (Mr. Atkey), after some preliminary observation, which I think he intended as a mere introduction to the real pith of his speech, touched on the question of Nottingham Railway Station. I knew he would. He could not help it, and we should have been unhappy if he had not done so. He has threatened that he will ask questions week by week until he gets his own way. No one would be worthy of any position on this Bench, or anywhere else, if a policy of that kind was ever known to succeed. What are the facts here? The
Midland Railway Company adopted the policy of making Nottingham Railway Station what is known as a closed station. I think that is a phrase familiar to hon. Members.

Mr. W. THORNE: For obvious reasons.

Mr. NEAL: If they had not done that, they would have had to have a staff at all exits or entrances. They came to the conclusion that this particular entrance from Station Road was one which could be dispensed with. I may further point out that if we were to yield to this particular threat, it would mean, not only that Nottingham Station would have the extra facility, but that many other stations would require it as well, and at very substantial cost. What is the power of the Minister in these circumstances? He could, if he wished, and if this House wished—I doubt if any member of the Committee would wish it—exercise the powers given him under Section 3—autocratic powers that have been denounced—and he could say to the Midland Railway Company, "Against your wish, I direct you to keep open this particular access to this station." The railway company would be bound to obey that order at a cost estimated, according to the facilities at from £300 or £400 to £1,000 or £1,200 a year, and those costs could be recovered by the Midland Railway Company from the State, because, in the section which gives the Minister power to issue these directions there is an undertaking that if the company incur loss by reason of obeying the directions, the State must make good that loss. There may be cases, and if there are proper cases, the Minister of Transport would be the last man to shrink from exercising those powers, but I hope the Committee will agree with me that these Orders ought never to be given because some Member of this House says he is going to worry the Minister with questions until he gets his own way.
I have been asked a question or two as to canals. May I just tell the House in a few sentences the position with reference to this subject. Speaking in round figures, about one-third of the canals of the country came under Government control with the railways and they are included for financial purposes within the financial arrangements. Another one-third of the canals were taken possession of by the Ministry under the Defence of
the Realm Regulations, and the remaining third are still managed without control. We have been approached to take possession of all the canals under the statute for the purpose of enabling them to increase their rates, and in order that they may be made more fitted for the services required of them. In order to make the canals successful, a capital expenditure would have to be made upon them, or rather, upon only a certain portion of them, which, according to the Report of the Royal Commission, would probably amount to £70,000,000 or £30,000,000. Before the Government take any steps in the direction of dealing with the canals, it certainly ought to settle what its future policy is goings to be in regard to them. The Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Thomson) raised the question of the mail services in Scotland and in that was supported by the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Leng-Sturrock). That matter will receive consideration. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stevens) spoke of the Coal Controller, whom I do not represent in this House. He used a threat. I do not know what his point was, and I do not propose to deal with it further.

Mr. STEVENS: The point was, that the Coal Controller ought to have been assisted by the Minister of Transport before he sent out to the different districts the coal which was to be used.

Mr. NEAL.: I should rather like to cross-examine my hon. Friend. I should like to know whether he made the slightest enquiry as to whether there was co-ordination between the two Departments? I wonder if he has any knowledge whatever of the extent, to which the Departments are working in perfect unison and harmony? Has he the slightest knowledge at all of the principle on which the Coal Controller discharged his duties? Is there a shadow of foundation for the charges he brought? I am certain if he had informed himself on any one of these questions he would never have made the statement he did.

Mr. STEVENS: I have stated the facts right enough. I said that from the want of transport and control the matters occurred to which I referred.

Mr. NEAL: Will my hon. Friend accept my suggestion that, at any rate, if he has
made enquiries, he has gone the wrong road to a place which does not exist. May I turn for a moment to what fell from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), who spoke of the difficulty of obtaining raw material and made reference to charter parties. May I say these matters were certainly considered in consultation with the Ministry of Shipping. I have left to the last two or three matters which I think are of much greater importance than any of those with which I have dealt up to the present. The hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Lieut-Colonel Archer-Shee) addressed some enquiries to me with reference to the congestion which exists at the London Docks, and the hon. Member for Eccles stated that the London Docks were in the possession of the Ministry of Transport. That statement of the hon. Member came nearer to accuracy than any other that he made. It was accurate verbally, but it was inaccurate in substance. The Minister of Transport—at the request, of the Port of London Authority—a request which none of us who sat on the Grand Committee that dealt with the Transport Bill would ever have prophesied would, have been made.

Mr. STEVENS: I agree.

Mr. NEAL: We have got agreement at last, and that is something—at the request of the Port of London Authority, exercised its power under Section 4 of the Act of taking possession of the Port of London a few weeks ago for one purpose only—and if my hon. Friend is informed he knows the purpose. It was to enable the Port of London Authority to raise their charges and dues so that they might deal with the present high prices, which are pressing on them as on everyone else. If the hon. Member has made the slightest enquiry into the facts, he knows that that is the limit of the control of the Minister of Transport. He, perhaps, did not know that I knew it.
I will pass from that to a very much more serious topic—that which I had hoped to have the privilege of dealing with this very night, at the request of the Leader of the House, on a Motion which was to have been made by the hon. Member (Mr. Terrell). There is very great difficulty indeed in my doing justice or anything approaching it to this topic on these Estimates. The Motion as it
stood on the Order Paper, and still stands for a future date, indicts four Ministries: the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Shipping, the Food Controller and the Board of Trade, in respect of congestion at the Port of London—and it also includes Liverpool. I speak with the knowledge and authority of the Cabinet when I say we are anxious and desirous of the earliest possible opportunity of having that matter inquired into and probed to the bottom, and on behalf of every one of those Ministries I say that the House of Commons, which is never unfair and is always quite willing to receive the proper kind of explanations, will come to the conclusion that the state of things, lamentable as it is, in the Port of London to-day is not the result either of inaction or of some improper action on the part of the Port of London Authority, which has made gigantic efforts to put this matter right, or of any Department of the Government. I have consulted officers of the Port of London as to whether the I have any complaint whatever to make against the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Would it not have been possible, by concerted action, months ago by the use of motor lorries—to clear the congestion?

Mr. NEAL: No, it would not. I am quite prepared, with the consent of the Committee and with your approval, Sir, to make a short preliminary statement on that matter, and to meet hon. Members with my colleagues at any time, to go into the matter in the greatest possible detail.

The CHAIRMAN: That would not be possible. There is a Motion standing on the Order Paper.

Mr. NEAL: I feared that was the decision you would be bound to give. None the less, if any of my hon. Friends who are interested in the matter can find some way whereby the Ministry can give them every information and assistance, it will be most heartily welcomed by every Member of the Government.

Mr. STEVENS: Might I suggest that we meet in the Grand Committee Room upstairs some afternoon?

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will deal with that outside the Committee

Mr. NEAL: I think I have sufficiently indicated that any method which com-
mends itself to hon. Members will be acceptable to the Government, and we shall have an opportunity of telling the country the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with the very serious congestion at Hull?

Mr. NEAL: No, I am not prepared to deal with the serious congestion at Hull in anything more than general terms. I think I have got quite enough material to deal with still, including my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean), if he will forgive me for calling him "material," before I sit down. The case of Hull is a matter of great importance, and I should be quite glad to discuss it with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and tell them exactly what the position is. So far as the rules permit me, I should like to say a word or two about transport. The rights and powers of the Ministry of Transport arise not on the traffic which is coming into the Port of London, but with the clearance of the traffic from the Port of London. The Departments which are concerned with the inflowing traffic are the Ministry of Shipping, the Ministry of Food, and the Board of Trade. What we have tried to do is to secure that there shall be as large a supply as the circumstances of the case warrant of railway wagons to take away the goods which accumulate. The trouble is not there. The trouble is that you have got the Port of London warehouses and sheds, and cold stores and supplies of every description, to which they have added many-thousands of cubic feet, all blocked with traffic, and when you are dealing with any traffic problem, if you have a block at any point, the rate at which you can clear the block is the rate at which you can deal with the whole problem. It is no use looking at it from any other point of view.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Is not that just where you ought to have used your motor lorries?

Mr. NEAL: Motor lorries were used.

Mr. JONES: To what extent?

Mr. NEAL: I cannot give precise figures.

Mr. JONES: I can.

Mr. NEAL: The railways which serve the Port of London are the Great Eastern and the Midland. The Great Eastern Railway serves the India and Millwall Dock and the Victoria and Albert Dock; and the Midland serves the Tilbury Dock. For February, these are the exact figures with reference to the supply of wagons. Bespoken by the Port of London Authority, 4,800. Supplied, 2,154 empty wagons and 4,511 loaded wagons, which become available for outward traffic when they are unloaded—total, 6,665. The daily average demand, therefore, was 162, and they had 278 supplied. At the Tilbury Docks the total demand was 6,708, and the supply was 2,704 empty and 2,934 under load—a total supply of 5,638. The daily average demand was 280; and there was supplied 113 empty and 122 loaded—a total of 235. The fact is that, in the worst case we can trace yet, the Authorities have had 76 per cent. of the wagons they had requested, and of the numbers available they only loaded 94 per cent. I do not think that figure left baldly would quite fairly state the facts.

Sir J. D. REES: The Committee will be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell us what is going to be done to clear the Port.

Mr. NEAL: I shall be glad to do anything I can at this stage and on some later occasion to put a much fuller case than is really possible to-day. I do not think it is quite fair to say that the fact that there are wagons unloaded shows that no more wagons were wanted, because the surplus wagons might not be in the place where they were required or might not be the type of wagon which was required. But the railway companies were doing their best. The Ministry of Transport has no wagons.

Mr. STEVENS: You ought to have them all.

Mr. NEAL: No one fought more fiercely against the power to purchase all privately-owned wagons than my hon. Friend.

Mr. STEVENS: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to refrain from interruptions.

Mr. NEAL: Really they are not in the least degree intended to be helpful to the discussion. The Minister of Transport
has no wagons; the railway companies are short of wagons from causes which have been explained by the Minister himself. But when you deal with the more essential matters, the question of meat and food supplies, there has always been a surplus of refrigerating vans to take away the meat, and we have never heard of a single complaint that any foodstuff has not been distributed as rapidly as the consumers could take it by the Ministry of Transport, or more accurately speaking, by the railway companies themselves.
8.0 P.M.
I must pass now to the one other matter which remains and which is the subject of the Amendment. I am not quite sure that my speech of last night has been accurately interpreted by some of my hon. Friends. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean) has not had time sufficiently to study my speech in order to do it justice. What was the position that I endeavoured to make last night, and which I will endeavour to make clearer to-night, with reference to the position of the Ministry and the railway undertakings of this country? I said that the major duty of the Ministry of Transport, not the only duty—one hon. Member cited me as saying the only duty—was to look to the permanent policy of this country. I stand by that absolutely. The present difficulties, great as they are, will pass; they must pass. Every means at the disposal of the Ministry or anybody else to get rid of the present difficulties must be used, but those difficulties which are War created, which are the legacy of the economic trouble created by the War, are temporary and will pass, and they are being faced and grappled with and dealt with day by day and hour by hour. I called attention to that in my speech, and when I was speaking of Sir Philip Nash, the Director-General of Traffic, I said in terms that with great care he and his staff were dealing with these problems day by day. That is quite true. There is not a step that I can think of that has not been taken by the Ministry that is available to-day in order to relieve the present condition of affairs. If we take the long view, the only true way of looking at this matter is not to treat the symptoms, to neglect the cause of the disease and not to get right down to the root cause of the troubles in transport to-day. To adopt those methods would
be quackery, and would be altogether unworthy of the Minister of Transport.
I must not be misunderstood upon this matter. If any hon. Member can render us assistance by suggestions they are welcome. I am speaking amongst friends. There are very few of the hon. Members whom I see around me who have not put their problems before the Ministry of Transport and who, I make bold to say, have not had a reply within twenty-four hours with regard to any problem they have put before us. Whatever attempt may be made through the Press or otherwise to condemn the Government through any of its branches, they know perfectly well that we are dealing with the existing difficulties. There are two ways in which you can deal with them. One way would lead to chaos. If we were to compel, to coerce the railway companies to let us manage their business we should utterly fail and we should deserve to fail. That is not our method. The principle upon which we are acting is this. We are in constant consultation with them. There was a Railway Executive Committee of general managers sitting in London up to the end of the year. The Minister of Transport thought that those general managers would be better occupied at their posts managing their railways, and they went back. But we are in daily communication with every railway company. We assist them in every way we can. Would my right hon. Friend ask me to say that we wish from Whitehall to take over the settlement of the time table, the employment of the staff and the running of the trains? Such a state of things would be denounced by him with more fervour even than he denounced the Ministry in his speech to-day.
From the first speaker, through a long succession of speeches, I was reproached because I did not disclose the policy of the Ministry. It must not be assumed that the Ministry is doing nothing. That policy is being evolved. Great steps have been made in the direction of formulating that policy. The Minister has had given to him a period of control for two years to enable him to formulate that policy, and long before the expiration of that two years the House and the country will be taken into our confidence and be asked to pronounce upon that policy. Does anyone expect that within the first seven months of the establishment of the Ministry, before that policy has received
Cabinet sanction, that I am going to come here, on the preliminary Estimates of the Ministry, and say Aye or No to the policy of nationalisation? First of all I should want those who expected me to do that to define "nationalisation." It is a word that is now being commonly used. It is being bandied about amongst us with very little thought of what it means. Nationalisation of the railways may mean State ownership with somebody else working them. It may mean nationalisation on the lines indicated by the right hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace), when on the Debate on the "mines he said, "By all means nationalise the mines in the sense that you buy them out, but the State must not work them." State property paid for by State money must pass out of State control into the hands of local committees set up. It might mean private ownership under State management. There are many varieties of things that nationalisation might mean. All I can say is that I am not going in the smallest degree to give the slightest intimation of what the policy will be that will ultimately be submitted to this country. The great duty entrusted to the Minister of Transport is to see that the advice which is to be given ultimately is not hasty, ill-considered, and improperly expressed, but is the result of a careful working out of this problem in the hope that it may lead to the greatest possible good of the country in the future.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I am sure every Member of the Committee will concede to the hon. Gentleman the claim to earnestness and sincerity in dealing with the task in which he is engaged. He is imbued with one desire and that is to make his Department as effective as possible, but I still think that there is some other method that could be adopted, having regard to the great importance of this question to the general industries of the country. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have touched at greater length upon the present management of the railways as they are now run by the different companies. The statement has been quoted against him that in his speech last night he said that he was prepared to let the railway companies do their work in their own way. Is he certain that his efforts, in so far as they are endeavouring to co-ordinate the transport services of the country, are being helped by the present administra-
tion by the railway companies of the country? There is a feeling that greater efficiency might be displayed by the railway companies themselves, that their organisation of the service is not in accord with the best interests of the country and that commerce generally is being hampered. That need not exist if greater consideration was shown in that respect. I know men in the railway service who feel keenly on this question; who do not hesitate to say that the" management of the companies themselves are not all that is desired from the point of view of the national interest, and it is useless to a large extent for the hon. Gentleman and his Department to do their best to co-ordinate the service unless there is harmony throughout the country and the railway companies do their best to dovetail their organisation into his own.
I thought possibly that we might have heard something further about the question of wagon shortage. After what has taken place during the period of the War this is a difficulty which naturally must arise when so many wagons were transferred to other spheres of activity, but I would ask whether or not some of the Departments could not be occupied with wagon construction with advantage to the country. I remember reading the excellent statement made on this particular question to Members of the House by the Minister of Transport, and I was interested to note that he stated that the prices for which wagons could be constructed at Woolwich Arsenal were considerably lower than the prices quoted by outside contractors. When one hears of a heavy discharge of labour from Woolwich Arsenal later on, one wonders whether the fullest advantage is being taken of that place in the matter of wagon construction, having regard to the needs of the Country and the statement of the Minister of Transport in reference to price. It is useless to expect the best results in matters of this description unless the whole of the national resources are utilised fully in regard to the different phases of the question. I can only hope that national institutions like Woolwich Arsenal will be utilised fully in helping a work which is so essential to carrying on the services of the country. Industry is being seriously disturbed by lack of adequate railway facilities at present in the
matter of the return to the factories of the empties which are necessary in order that further goods may be despatched. I know of boot factories which are full to the doors with boots because of the difficulty, almost the impossibility of getting the return of the empties whereby further deliveries of their manufactured goods can be made. There is a wastage of labour going on also because new cases are being made with a waste of material and labour which might be utilised in other directions if better facilities were granted for a return of the empties.
I desire now to refer to agriculture so far as it is affected by transport As a member of the recent Royal Commission dealing with Agriculture, I can say that there was no question which came before us upon which there was greater unanimity than that of transport. Everybody agreed that the industry was hampered by the lack of adequate transport, and that expenditure in many cases was wasted because there were not sufficient transport facilities to Garry the produce to market. If that is so in regard to ordinary facilities I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that if our present inadequate system of transport is not fully placed at the disposal of agriculture the industry must suffer further. In some of the Eastern Counties it is a common thing to see railway yards full of farmers' wagons laden with produce which have been taken there and have to be left there because there are no facilities to carry the produce away. It means a great expense to the industry to have, to send horses and men to railway stations a number of times before the produce can be removed.
The needs of agriculture have been advocated frequently in this House from the point of view of the cost of production. If we add to that the difficulty of farmers because of the impossibility of getting their goods away, we can see that it seriously affects the industry. I would urge on the hon. Gentleman the imperative need of organising more effectively a supply of wagons whereby the industry may be better looked after. The present position has this serious effect, that farmers will perhaps hesitate to grow crops which require weekly deliveries, from the farm unless they can have the necessary supply of wagons. The industry is affected adversely by the fact that farmers never can know when they
send their goods to different stations whether they will be able to have them taken from them and delivered at their destination, or how many times a man will have to go to the different stations before the goods are finally taken off his hands.
I recognise fully that in so short a time it has not been possible to reorganise the service in the way all of us would like to see. Personally, I appreciate the earnest endeavours of the hon. Gentleman in this matter, but I would suggest to him again the importance of trying to ascertain whether the organisation of the railway companies of the country is of a character that harmonises with the efforts made by his own Department. It is useless for his Departmtnt to use its best endeavours to develop an organisation of transport in the country unless it is helped by the railway companies working on harmonious lines. One hears of remarkable cases of goods which are retained on sidings, and have to be moved continually for shunting operations—trucks full of goods whose destination is only a few miles away from where the trucks are standing, and which are being moved continually. While that kind of thing continues, one is forced to the conclusion that railway companies may not be imbued with that same honest endeavour to meet the needs of the country as is manifested in the speech of the hon. Gentleman. I would emphasise again the great importance of the needs of agriculture, not merely as regards railway extensions, which are necessary, but from the point of view of existing railways giving adequate facilities to the industry, which are so essential if the goods from the farm, of which we are all greatly in need, are to be distributed throughout the country.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman did not mean any discourtesy, I am sure, but he rose rather early and cut out some hon. Members who wished to raise matters that may seem to him rather unimportant. I rather gathered that that was his attitude when I raised the point on which I am going to speak now, but these matters are of great importance to the constituencies which we represent and to the whole country, and the hon. Gentleman dealt with them very cursorily and indifferently. He comes to this Committee and asks for £181,061 for an
enormous staff containing these highly-paid officials, and in reference to questions, which concern our constituents so much, in seaports, we are told that we can come and see him again afterwards. That is not good enough. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants his dinner or his Vote, but with this sort of treatment he is not going to get either. I want to refer to the lamentable state of affairs in the port of Hull. The port has become more and more congested and now there is a congestion of over 100,000 tons of timber. The hon. Gentleman did not think fit to refer to this in his speech, but I hope he will reply later. The timber buyers are totally unable to place their orders for timber until they have some guarantee that the congestion will be removed. That in its turn means unemployment. It means also that the timber is not being distributed over the country for house building, and that the price of timber and of houses is being kept up. The matter has been raised by myself, by the Chamber of Commerce for the city of Hull, and by other Members of this House, but we have had very little satisfaction. Highly-paid officials have come to Hull and consulted, but nothing else has happened.
The trouble, of course, is the shortage of wagons. I was astonished to hear that British wagons in France are being sold to the Belgians, and that wagons are being sent to Poland. In the latter case it can be, presumably, only for mad military adventures. If that is the case, there is going to be a good deal of dissatisfaction in the country. Timber is a light article that could be carried by road and we want to know why the experiment of using motor lorries is not made. In Manchester and some other places, I believe, the system was not satisfactory or was not popular, but in Hull it was extraordinarily useful. Why cannot we have the motor lorries back Are they being used to break another railway strike? If not, why cannot they be used to overcome the serious crisis in the trade of the country? Another question to which I want to refer relates to oil-cake. The makers cannot get on with the manufacture of oil-cake because their storing space is blocked up and they cannot get wagons. That means that there is a shortage of oil-cake, and therefore a shortage of milk, and the price of milk is going up. I hope the hon. Gentleman will
reply to these suggestions, which I have made, I hope, in a constructive and friendly way. I have been interested to notice that the hon. Members who attempted to cut the heart out of the Ministry of Transport Bill are those who now complain that the Ministry of Transport is to blame. I supported the Ministry of Transport. I spoke in this House in favour of the personal capacity of the present Minister, with whom I served at the Admiralty. As to his energy and ability I could therefore testify. I must say, however, that the criticisms of the Ministry which are now being made seem to me to be justified. There is too much thinking, considering and working out of policy and too little action. The people of the country are prepared to suffer inconvenience if a real effort is made to solve the problem before us. I have to admit that from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary I cannot gather that the problem is seriously viewed at the Ministry, or that sufficient steps are going taken to deal with the trouble. I can speak with knowledge of Hull. The information there is that a good deal more could be done by the Ministry.
I would like to pass from that to an item in the Estimates which I think is a scandal. On page 75, there is a sum for the pay of cleaners. The pay of the Director-Generals, Commissioners and others is in no respect mean. Those officials are well paid, and if they do their work they are worth it. But on page 75 we see an item referring to 35 cleaners, or charwomen, who are to be paid 14s., a week. They get a War bonus in addition. The hon. Gentleman could not say what that War bonus was, but if he has an opportunity of consulting his professional advisers, I think he might tell us. At this time of day to pay poor women 14s. a week, plus War bonus, is a scandal. We hear plenty about economy, but for heaven's sake do not let us economise in the wages of cleaners. We are asked also to approve a payment of 29s. a week to three coal porters. To pay that sum at this period is also scandalous, and I shall certainly vote for a reduction of the Vote unless we get a good explanation. There is one other blot on the Estimates. The Ministry of Transport is starting with a clean sheet. They bring here their complete staff cut and dried. I want to know
why they are paying male clerks and female clerks at different rates. I do not think there is an hon. Member of this Committee who, when asked at the General Election whether he was in favour of equal pay for men and women for equal work, did not answer, yes. Otherwise he would not have got the women's vote. These are not typists. I take it they are clerks as stated. I think it is scandalous. A new Department ought to set an example. The great complaint of the discharged soldier who cannot get work is that women are employed because they are cheaper, and when he hears of this sort of thing I think he is justified in saying that and in complaining.
In reply to the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) the Parliamentary Secretary stated that he was not going to say a word as to what would be the policy of the Ministry of Transport in two years' time. That is quite true. Neither he nor his Government will have an opportunity of doing it. There will be another Government in power, we hope, and it will have another policy. It will be a policy of Government management, Government ownership, and Government control, and that need not mean bureaucracy. There is no other way of solving this problem.

Mr. W. CARTER: I desire to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary a question affecting the facilities afforded to men travelling to and from their work in North Notts. Owing to mine developments and the lack of housing accommodation, thousands of men have to travel by train to and from their work under conditions which, I think without exaggeration, I may describe as revolting, This occurs from Mansfield to various pits in the neighbourhood. Many of these men have to travel in carriages in total darkness, without any heating accommodation, and as a result contract chills and colds, and have to go on the sick list so that thereby the output of coal is reduced. Only last week I had occasion to travel in this district, and on arriving at my destination I noticed that there were three or four workmen's carriages attached to the ordinary train. I had been in comfort in a carriage well upholstered, heated and lighted, but the three carriages attached for workmen had no light, no heat and no upholstery, and
that was for men who had been giving their services in the mines, and had come out of the pits with sweated clothes. There are hon. Members in this House who would not, I am sure, allow cattle to travel under those circumstances. Representations have been made to the railway companies, asking that the carriages in which workmen have to travel to and from their work should be lighted and heated, and invariably the reply is, that it would be too costly an undertaking. I confess I do not wonder that there is unrest and dissatisfaction in the minds of the men who have to travel under those circumstances. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is quite familiar with the conditions of travelling, because he happens to live in that particular district. Although this may appear to be a very small question, it is very important in the interests of the health and comfort of these men, and I appeal to him to give the subject favourable consideration, and to make representations to the various companies so that these men can go to their work and come from it in that degree of comfort which is afforded to the rest of the community.

Major ENTWISTLE: I wish to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) with regard to the traffic difficulties of the Port of Hull. I have had a good deal of experience personally on the state of affairs at Hull. I have been agitating and using all my influence for a good many months past in connection with this question. At first the problem became acute with regard to the seed-crushing industry. So serious did it become that the mills were closing down, and if it had not been that through the strenuous efforts which we and others made, the Ministry, I admit frankly sent, a representative there and slightly alleviated the position, the mills would have had to close down. But the position is still very serious and production is being seriously restricted through this shortage of traffic. The position now has become serious particularly with regard to the timber trade. At this time when the importing season is coming to an end, and when the workmen will not be able to be engaged in the actual process of unloading the ships, and when in the normal course they would be engaged in loading wagons to get timber inland, owing to the shortage of railway wagons and this con-
gestion of traffic, this timber cannot be got rid of and the men will be out of employment, and timber so urgently needed for housing is not being obtained. I submit that the position is really very serious. I make no excuse for referring to the specific Port of Hull, because its position is peculiarly unfortunate. It is dealt with more unfairly than other districts owing to the fact that the allocation of wagons was made, for some reason which I do not know, on the basis of the use of wagons during the year 1017. Everyone knows that during that year the submarine campaign by the Germans was at its highest state of efficiency, and if any port suffered through the submarine menace it was the Port of Hull. Therefore to be tied up now to an allocation based on the year 1917 is manifestly unfair to the great Port of Hull.
I, like my hon. Friend, the Member for Central Hull, supported the Ministry of Transport Kill when it went through this House, and I have been one of the many supporters of the Ministry. I desire to testify here to the unvarying courtesy which has been displayed by the hon. Member who so ably represents the Ministry during this Debate. I had many occasions to write to him, and not only had I prompt but most courteous replies. I am quite certain, so far as he personally is concerned, that he is doing his best to improve matters which are, however, still very unsatisfactory. When the hon. Gentleman spoke last night he advised Members to go to the railway companies first, and said it was too frequent a practice to go to the Ministry of Transport to solve all difficulties. I can ass— him with regard to Hull, that every possible communication and approach and appeal have been made to the railway companies, so that, at any rate, we are not going to him before we hare made every possible appeal to get satisfaction direct to the railway companies. This is getting to be a most urgent and serious business. We have had a lot of promises, and representatives of the Ministry have come up and we have been fed with those promises, but I am sorry to say that in the main they have been very fruitless. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply to deal with this important and serious question of the traffic congestion at Hull, Hull seems to have been particularly unfortunate, not only as to its traffic, but
with regard to coal export which arises through the difficulties of transport. The Ministry say that, owing to the shortage of wagons and congestion, coal must not go for export to Hull except from the midlands while that coal is allocated to other districts. The result is that the export trade of Hull is also seriously suffering. We made efforts to see the Prime Minister on the matter, but we have not been successful. This is wrapped up with the question of traffic regulations in that district. I do submit that the general interests of the country are involved in the solving of this question of the great and acute congestion at Hull.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Seeing that the question of Scotland has been brought forward, I think I might also mention South Wales. We have heard some criticism in reference to salaries, but I am more interested about production, because once you get production you can easily find the money to pay salaries, and in South Wales we are very seriously handicapped in so far as the transport business is concerned. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that some months ago a very representative deputation from the collieries and steel works, tinplate works, docks, spelter works, and other industries in South Wales waited upon the Prime Minister, and a very strong case was made out against the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry asked the committee that waited upon the Prime Minister to send forward a further report with a view to allowing the officials to investigate as to the cause of the congestion in South Wales. Up to the present I do not believe that anything has been done. We are in a worse position in South Wales to-day than we were when that deputation waited upon the Prime Minister. It is a very serious matter, because in some cases we know that one industry is dependent upon another. I have a case in mind where in one works they were producing pig iron and wanted to send it to another works seven miles away, and it took seven days to get that pig iron from one works to the other. The result is that furnaces in the steel works are lighted up during the week-end, and perhaps in the middle of the week the furnaces will have to be damped down because there is no pig iron, and there is the waste of all this coal as a result. That is not all. The
output has been reduced. You have two classes of men who are employed in these trades, some people paid by piece-work and others by the day. The people who work on piece-work have an opportunity, even if there is a shortage one week, of making it up the following week, but the labourers and the day workers have not an opportunity, when they are sent home from the works as a result of the furnaces being closed down, to regain the money they have lost, and therefore you have all this unrest among these labourers and other day workers as a result of all the congestion that is taking place in the different industries in South Wales.
I would like to make one suggestion to the hon. Gentleman. During the railway strike, when it suited the Government to use road transport in order to break the railway strike, they did not trouble how much money they spent in order to achieve that purpose. Now we have discharged soldiers who are being paid unemployed benefit to-day, who are walking the streets, and who are prepared to work if you find work for them. They can drive these motor lorries, and why is it the Government do not use the same motor lorries now to relieve this congestion as they did when it suited their purpose in order to break the railway strike? Then there is another point. I am not in favour of Sunday labour, and I want to reduce it as much as I can, but in some of the industries the railway companies have to do a great amount of shunting on Sunday in order to get the raw materials into the industries, and also to bring the finished material out. I have been informed—I cannot say how far it is true—that the Ministry of Transport will not permit the railway men to work on Sunday, because they have to pay double time for the work. Surely, common-sense ought to teach us that if it is going to be an advantage to the country to get an increased output it is far better for the Ministry of Transport to pay this double time to the railway men in order to get the raw material into the industries and the finished material out. There is just one other point. Some months ago we had the Minister of Transport addressing a meeting of Members of this House in a Grand Committee room upstairs, to explain the reason for all this congestion, and I took a special note of one remark that was made by the Minister on that
occasion. He said that there was not a shortage of wagons, and that for the whole of the United Kingdom there were 2,000 more wagons in 1919 than in 1914, but, he said, so far as England, Scotland, and Wales were concerned, they were 1,000 wagons short. Therefore, we had to come to the conclusion at once that the 2,000 extra wagons must have been in Ireland, with the troops. Why is it that the Government is mis-governing Ireland in that way, and keeping 2,000 wagons there that ought to be in this country assisting production and export in order to balance the exchange? Let us try and get Ireland governed better and—

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): We are not discussing that now.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I will leave that then, and merely suggest that the Ministry of Transport should endeavour as quickly as possible to get these two thousand wagons back from Ireland in order to assist the congestion in other parts of the country.

Mr. TOOTILL: There are two items to which I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. In regard to Item 56, Messengers, I presume they are adult male persons who are employed to do this work at 27s. weekly, and taking that on the pre-War basis—

Mr. NEAL: They have war bonuses.

Mr. TOOTILL: I hope the hon. Gentleman will gives us the amount of the war bonus, added to the 27s. weekly, and the number of hours they are called upon to work, and thereby show that the Government realise the position of men labouring for such a small wage. With regard to Item 35, which has already been referred to by various speakers, namely, to state the amount of the bonus that these employés are paid. It does seem, in these clays, at any rate, to be ridiculous that anybody should be employed for eight hours in any one given day at the rate of 14s. per week, and that a Government, which has command of the national purse-strings to the extent that they have, should let it go forth that persons are employed at this weekly wage. Then I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact, which has been clearly demonstrated, that congestion on the different railway systems
in the country and at the ports does exist. I want to know, and I think the country wants to know, for what reason this congestion exists? Are the men at fault? Are they not doing their duty? Do they not realise the national danger consequent upon their inactivities and indifference to the conditions that prevail, or what really is the reason?. Surely it cannot be that the railway companies are so disinterested and unpatriotic as not themselves to realise that something should be done to relieve this great congestion. If they are convinced that it does exist, and that something is necessary to be done, what are their plans for removing this particular state of congestion?
The hon. Gentleman last night and today has endeavoured to explain, and has. I think, shown, that he himself realises the grave and perilous position, and is evidently desirous of doing his best, at any rate, to remove the difficulty. But will he tell us what is in the minds of the Ministry of Transport in regard to relieving this tremendous danger with regard to this particular matter? I am sure if they realise it, as I hope they do, they must see that indirectly it has an effect upon the cost of living, and that, I am sure, is the predominant danger with which the country is faced at the present juncture. To-morrow there is to be a great Congress of Representatives of Labour directly interested in these great and serious national problems. I believe that if the Government would prove to the country and to these particular representatives that they are seriously anxious to remove the dangers that at present exist, to remove all that tends to produce anxiety in the minds of the people of this country in regard to the continuous rise in the cost of commodities, it would do much to ameliorate and appease, and to produce contentment in the minds of the workers in a way that nothing else can possibly do. If there is anything, personally, I feel particularly proud of, it is that on 17th February, 1915, in delivering my maiden speech in this House, I devoted myself entirely to the possibilities of the rise in the cost of commodities and the results that would follow if that took place. I pointed out in that speech—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We must keep to the business of the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. TOOTILL: I thank you, Sir Edwin, for your correction. I want to know from the responsible Minister who is in charge of this particular matter, if he will tell us what really, in his view, is causing all these complaints in respect to the congestion on the railways and at the ports; and whether it is not possible, at any rate, to prevent such complaints as have been made responsibly from this Bench, that it has taken seven days to carry raw materials from one place to another seven miles distant. That, in a State of civilisation, in a country like ours, should never be possible from any cause whatever, and should not be allowed to continue. I hope he will endeavour to show the House and the country that the Ministry of Transport are going to deal with this question in a practical and businesslike way, and that, so far as they are concerned, these complaints in future shall not exist.

Major BARNES: I would do an extremely unkind and ungrateful thing if I kept the Minister in charge of this Vote from his dinner very much longer. I want to add my meed of congratulation to him upon the capacity which he has shown in discharging the very important duty that has fallen to him. Whatever may be thought about the absence of the Minister of Transport, I am sure there will be general agreement that the Vote has not suffered in any way by being in the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary. I want to draw his attention to one or two matters to which I think his attention has not been called up to the present time. He said, in the course of his speech yesterday, that when the Ministry was formed, one of the first things they had to do was to discover what were the exact financial arrangements between the Government and the railway companies. He said they were spread over a series of documents, and that they had to get them together, and, so far as they could, collate them and find out exactly what the arrangement was. On that point, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he could give us an undertaking that, having now discovered for himself what the position exactly is—and I presume that is the result of the effort made—he will take some steps to put the House in possession of the facts? This is one of the, greatest undertakings this country has ever been engaged in, the possession of all the rail-
way undertakings, and it seems extremely important that we should know exactly what are the financial arrangements between the Government and the railway companies. I take it that that is now known to the Ministry of Transport, and if they will circulate to the House some statement of the facts, they will do a real service in that respect.
9.0 P.M.
On the very narrow point of the reduction of the Vote. I intend to vote for this reduction, and very briefly to give the House my reasons for so doing. There can be no question but that the country is disappointed. That disappointment has been expressed in the House. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that it is rather preposterous and unreasonable to expect more from the Ministry than they have done. That may be so, but he himself in his speech yesterday used these words:
There is a common idea that if traffic is delayed, if there is a congested port, and so on, it was due to the Ministry.
Ideas do not become common without some foundation. I think the hon. Member will agree with me that the country was lead to expect, when the Ministry of Transport was formed that a great deal of the trouble and expense they had been put to by reason of the conditions of traffic would be relieved. It may be we were wrong in that expectation, but it was reasonable and founded upon the hope held out to the country, both at the election and when the Ministry of Transport Bill was going through this House. The hon. Member desires to carry through a Vote for £181,000, which is only for a period of the year. The cost of his Department will really amount to nearly £300,000 for the year. I took the trouble to examine what the cost of some other of the great Departments of State are, and it is rather interesting to find that this infant Department already exceeds in its yearly expenditure either the Treasury, the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office. The country, I think, will be disappointed to find that for this expenditure it is not going to get the relief from those burdens and annoyances to which it has been subjected. I do not, therefore, think that the hon. Member in charge of the Vote can really be surprised at the expressions of disappointment in this House. When the country does learn what this staff is really for, I think they
will not only be disappointed, but surprised.
I think it was the hon. Member for East Edinburgh who put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that there was some inconsistency between several of his statements last night. On the one hand, he told us he had nothing to do with the internal economy of the railways, and on the other hand he told us he had a department which dealt with questions like the provision of wagons and other similar matters. The hon. Gentleman in his speech this afternoon tried to reconcile those statements by saying, that whilst it was true that the Ministry of Transport had nothing to do with the internal economy of the railways, yet in those matters in which it was interfering it was doing so because the Government had assumed a very considerable financial responsibility. He told us that in all cases where expenditure on the railways was more than the normal cost, that the excess was to fall upon the taxpayer, and that the staff for the railways for whom we are voting to-day really existed for the purpose of checking this cost, and seeing that the proportion of the burden which falls upon the taxpayer is not an unfair one.
Only yesterday we had a Vote in which we were asked to provide something over £100,000 for inspectors appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture because of certain guarantees given to the farmers. These inspectors were to check the conditions of the guarantee and see that they were properly carried out. Here we have apparently an exactly identical situation. A guarantee appears to have been given to the railway companies of this country that the excess cost of improvements they may have to carry out under the Ministry of Transport is to fall upon the taxpayer, and in consequence, so far as I am able to judge, one of the principal reasons for the appointment of a very considerable staff is that these estimates have to be checked and posibly reduced. Something like 280 schemes have already been submitted to the staff in question, we are told, and passed by the Financial, Traffic, Civil Engineering, and the Mechanical Engineering Departments, and on some of these schemes a saving of something like 5 per cent. has been made. Apparently, therefore, the object of this great staff is not to secure the public comforts, conveniences, and economies
we ware looking forward to; the staff has been established for the purpose of saving or diminishing to the taxpayer the burden which is to fall upon him in the future on account of the guarantee given by the Government to the railway interests. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Neal) shakes his head, but I took down his words at the time, and that is the only construction it appears to me they are capable of bearing. Let me draw attention to a passage in his speech yesterday in which the same thing is said. After speaking about the original arrangements, he went on to say that there was also the question of repairs. It should be realised that if these repairs were done in the time of rising prices there must be a Government charge to be ascertained in respect of them. The general position is this: that in the case of repairs not carried out during the War period, and also in respect of all improvements which are going to be made under the direction of the Ministry of Transport, the excess cost of these repairs and improvements is to fall upon the taxpayer. The effect of Government control during the War period is apparently a debit of £45,000,000 or £50,000,000.
There was an idea and a hope in the public mind when the Ministry of Transport was formed that it was going to be able to carry out in some way a wonderful process of co-ordination and such economies as would enable this £50,000,000 to be mot in some other way than by raising rates and fares. There is no doubt about it that that was a real hope. It was looked upon as a substantial hope by the general public. The deficiency has not been met in that way, and the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote does not hold out any hope of it being met in that way. The Ministry has met it by the very simple and obvious course of raising rates, and takes great credit at having relieved the taxpayer at the expense of the consumer. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the railway system must be made to pay. If it is necessary, if there is no other way, the deficiency can be made up then by raising fares and rates, that must be done. That, however, is not the hope we had. We hoped that the Ministry of Transport, through the exercise of its powers, would have discovered some methods of economising in the railway system that would have given us the relief we wanted in some other way than
that of increased rates and fares. But that is what has happened! That is the result of Government control during the last four or five years. That, too, does not take into account this new financial burden which is going to be placed upon the taxpayer.
Some little time ago I asked here, and I ask again, if there was any Estimate as to what the extra cost to the ratepayers during the War period was going to be. The Minister of Transport told me that it was something like £40,000,000. Here we have another £40,000,000 to be found, quite apart from the first deficiency. Now we learn to-day from the hon. Gentleman that, in addition to this, the taxpayer is to be called upon in the future to bear the excess cost of improvements to the railways which are being carried out. What will be the amount of that? No provision, so far as I know, has been made for this in any Vote or Estimate. It may very well be, that at the end of the two years of control, after all the schemes of the Minister have been carried out, that the taxpayer may find himself with a burden of anything up to £100,000,000, which may have to be met by further increases of rates and fares. It is a very serious prospect, and I should be glad if the Minister could hold out some hope that this will not be the case, or if he could give some justification for placing this burden upon the taxpayer. It all comes back in the long run upon the general public.
I am continually getting letters from people in my constituency who are apprehensive that passenger fares are going to be raised, and from traders who complain about the increase in the rates. Apparently, the future holds a darker prospect even that the present, and I do not see how the arrangement which we are told that the Government have entered into and which, so far as I know, has never been disclosed to the House can be justified.
If repairs cost more to-day than before the War, that is not peculiar to the railway companies; it is common to everybody who owns any kind of property, and it is very difficult to see why the railway companies should have the excess cost of their repairs and their improvements placed upon the State, while every other industry has to bear the extra cost
itself. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give us some good reason for it. Apparently, if the plans and schemes and intentions of the Ministry of Transport are carried out and the whole of the railway system of this country is improved, lock, stock and barrel, the cost is going to be placed very largely upon the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman says that is not so, and I hope that he will make it clear. He has been challenged on the point of policy. There is real substance in that point. If the system, at the end of two years, is going to be handed back to the railway companies, what justification can there be for placing the excess cost of these improvements upon the State? On the other hand, if instead of being handed back to the railway companies, it is going to be nationalised, is the State going to pay over again for improvements to which already it has contributed. My hon. Friend deprecates the question of policy being raised in the present situation, but I would remind him that when he was pressed with regard to the canals, he said, "We cannot undertake obligations in respect of canals until we have decided our policy." It appears to me that applies equally to the railways. The challenge made to him from this side, of the House to state his policy appears to me to be exceedingly reasonable.

Mr. NEAL: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. W. R. Smith) asked whether the railway companies were being efficiently managed. The word "efficiency" is a very relative term. I should be the last to criticise their management, but like everything else it is capable of improvement, and hon. Members know that a Railway Advisory Committee has been set up by the Minister, consisting of general managers, railway workers, and representatives of other interests, to secure that there shall be every possible improvement in the management of the railways. He also asked me a question about wagon building at Woolwich. There are, I believe, 1,000 wagons and 100 locomotives being constructed. He spoke about agriculture and hoped that it would not be neglected. I can assure him that it is one of the last things that we desire to neglect. I am afraid that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) had good ground for thinking that I was not quite as courteous
as he might have expected me to be in the way that I dealt with his interposition. I assure him that I have no desire to be otherwise than courteous to him or to any other hon. Member. He and his colleague (Major Entwistle) know perfectly well that the whole influence of the Ministry is being used to its fullest extent to relieve the congestion at the Port of Hull. I am myself deeply interested in the matter, and I hope that the congestion will be relieved before the new seasons purchases come in.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would the hon. Gentleman mind telling us what is going to be done? It is most vital to the port.

Mr. NEAL: I have already made a substantial contribution to the Debate, and I do not think the Committee would desire me to enter into the details of any scheme. If my hon. and gallant Friends will be good enough to put themselves in communication with me, I shall be glad to consider every possible means of relieving the congestion at the Port of Hull. Something was said about the charwomen who are engaged in cleaning the offices. They work for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening. They receive 15s. and 30 per cent. war bonus. That, I believe, is universal throughout the Government offices. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. W. Carter) a question as to the travelling conditions for men who work in conditions which make them very hot and wet. I am quite familiar with those conditions, and if it were possible' to warm the carriages I think it would be most advantageous. I quite realise that it may be disastrous to their health to have to travel in cold trains. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull referred to the system for the allocation of wagons made two years ago, and he suggested that it has not worked satisfactorily. I can tell him that matter is being reviewed at the present time by the Railway Clearing House. He also spoke about the export of coal. On the one hand, complaint is made against the Government for exporting coal which is urgently needed for home use, and, on the other hand, complaint is made against the Government for not permitting the export of coal. The Government is very much in the position of the little boy whose elder brother was sent
to see what he was doing and told to tell him that he must not do it.

Major ENTWISTLE: The complaint is that Hull is not treated as well as other ports.

Mr. NEAL: The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) spoke of the congestion in South Wales. That is a matter in which the Prime Minister takes a deep interest. A new railway line over the Severn is wanted, and that matter in connection with the creation of a dam on the Severn to use tidal waters for the purpose of creating electrical power is receiving most careful consideration. The question of another high level bridge over the Severn is also being considered, but there can be no real and satisfactory relief of the congestion in South Wales until there are better outlets for the traffic. I was asked a question with reference to motor lorries. They were altogether unsatisfactory in the Port of Hull, but I will not trouble at this stage to give the figures, although I will supply them if hon. Members would like to see them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Tootill) asked a question about the coal porters. Their wages, I think, stand in the list at 29s., which is increased by a bonus of 30 per cent. and a sum of 24s. The actual sum paid to them is 59s. The hon. Member invited me to deal with the question of congestion, and what has been done in relation to it. That matter is much too large a topic to enter upon now, except to say that there will be an increase of locomotive power by new construction and the expediting of repairs. There will be a similar increase in the efficiency in wagons. The difficulties are largely due to the application of the eight-hours working system, to which the companies have hardly yet adjusted themselves. When I tell the hon. Member that one railway company alone is training 30 per cent. of new locomotive drivers, it will be appreciated that efforts are being made to deal with that question. A locomotive driver cannot be put in charge of traffic without adequate training. There are many kinds of matters of that description, leading to the present trouble, and they are being removed, I hope, one by one. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) entered into a discussion on finance which does not represent my view of the situation at all, but which I think can be
more conveniently dealt with when there is something on the Vote relating to the sum we are called upon to pay for the railways.

Question put, "That Item A be reduced by £100."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 165.

Division No. 38.]
AYES.
[9.25 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Atkey, A. R.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grundy, T. W.
Rankin, Captain James S.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Guest, J. (York, W. R. Hemsworth)
Redmond, Captain William Archer


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Robertson, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rose, Frank H.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sexton, James


Briant, Frank
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bromfield, William
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cairns, John
Kenyon, Barnet
Too till, Robert


Cape, Thomas
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wignall, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower)


Devlin, Joseph
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Donnelly, P.
O'Grady, Captain James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Onions, Alfred



Entwistle, Major C. F.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Galbraith, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Hogge.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Elveden, Viscount
Macmaster, Donald


Armitage, Robert
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Baird, John Lawrence
Fell, Sir Arthur
Macquisten, F. A.


Baldwin, Stanley
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Barlow, Sir Montague
Forestier-Walker, L.
Middlebrook, Sir William


Barnett, Major R. W.
Forrest, Walter
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Barnston, Major Harry
France, Gerald Ashburner
Morris, Richard


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Gardiner, James
Mosley, Oswald


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Betterton, Henry B.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Greene, Lieut. Col. W. (Hackney, N)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Gregory, Holman
Neal, Arthur


Brittain, Sir Harry
Greig, Colonel James William
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Britton, G. B.
Griggs, Sir Peter
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward


Bruton, Sir James
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Oman, Charles William C.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hailwood, Augustine
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Perring, William George


Butcher, Sir John George
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Campbell, J. D. G.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Carr, W. Theodore
Haslam, Lewis
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Casey, T. W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Preston, W. R.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hood, Joseph
Ramsden, G. T.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Courthope, Major George L.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page
Jephcott, A. R.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Rodger, A. K.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Royden, Sir Thomas


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kellaway, Frederick George
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Kidd, James
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dawes, James Arthur
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Seager, Sir William


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lloyd, George Butler
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lort-Williams, J.
Stewart, Gershom


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sturrock, J. Leng


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield).
Waddington, R.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Wallace, J.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Taylor, J.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Terrell, Captain H. (Oxford, Henley)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Whitla, Sir William



Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Commander Eyres-Monsell and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Original question put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Shipping.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): It may probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I very shortly explain the reason why it is necessary for me to come to the House of Commons to ask for a Supplementary Vote for the Ministry of Shipping. As the Committee will see, the sum I am asking for is £100, but of course, the Committee realises that this is a Token Vote, and that the real object of this Estimate is to obtain authority from Parliament to appropriate a further sum of £19,500,000 of receipts in aid of expenditure. In introducing the Estimates for the Ministry of Shipping last May, I guarded myself by saying that the Estimates were extremely difficult to frame at that time, and that they must be largely conjectural, and it was quite impossible for the Ministry, in framing those Estimates, to put into them any sum. With regard to the main reasons why I have to come to the House of Commons and ask for a Supplementary Vote, the principal cause of the excess of the gross expenditure over the original Estimate is the Expense in connection with the enemy tonnage which has been surrendered, under the terms of the Armistice, and allocated to Great Britain to manage. There are some 240 ships, of a total gross tonnage of something over 1,300,000 tons. In the original Estimate it was not possible to make any provision in connection with these vessels, because, at the time when those Estimates were prepared, there was considerable uncertainty as to the arrangements which would be made by the Supreme Council. In asking for this sum, which is for expenses in connection with the running of this enemy tonnage, I think that perhaps it
might interest the Committee if I very shortly tell them the arrangements which were in force in connection with this tonnage from the date of the Armistice to the date of the ratification of Peace. Firstly, the late enemy is entitled to claim for hire of these vessels, based on what is known as the Blue Book rate. From such hire is deducted the cost of any repairs necessary at the time of handing over the vessels in order to bring them into proper running condition. The balance is paid, not to the late enemy, but to the Treasury account, where it is credited to the late enemy against the expenditure for which he is liable. In the second place, all the running expenses are paid by the British Government. The freight earned is credited to the Ministry of Shipping Vote, such freight being paid, either by the late enemy, so far as the vessels were used on German marine services, or by the Admiralty, War Office or commercial charterers, according to the service on which the vessels were employed. When the accounts, as between the Allies in respect of the trading of these vessels during the Armistice period are made up, some adjustment will, of course, be necessary, but, from the date of the ratification of Peace onwards, our financial arrangements will be adjusted through the Reparation Fund, and therefore will not affect the Ministry of Shipping Vote. That is the main reason why I have to ask for an additional sum on Supplementary Estimates.
There are also other transactions in which the gross expenditure of the Ministry has exceeded the Estimates under various heads, in consequence of anticipations as to the release of ships under requisition and control not having been realised. That is duo to many causes, one of the principal being the great congestion in the ports, which has very largely reduced the carrying efficiency of the British Mercantile Marine., It is also due to some industrial trouble which occurred last year, which delayed shipbuilding and ship repairing. But the addition to the gross expenditure of the Ministry through these causes is counter-
balanced by a corresponding increase in the revenue. The receipts of the Ministry of Shipping have very largely exceeded anticipations. This is due, firstly, to a change which has been constantly advocated by several hon. Members in this House. In the basis Estimates which were made after the Ministry of Shipping Estimates were presented, the cost of the shipping services to the Army, Navy, Munitions and Air Force, is borne on the Army, Navy, Munitions and Air Force Votes. That has involved an addition to the receipts in respect of Government-owned vessels employed in those services. In the second place, the receipts have exceeded Estimates owing to the high prices which have been realised for ships which have been sold, and in the third place, owing to the earnings of ex-enemy vessels, and the unexpected prolongation of trading by Government-owned tonnage in general. On the other side of the ledger must be placed the fact of the disposal of small craft having been handed over to the Disposal Board. The receipts estimated in the original Estimate for these services have consequently gone to the Munitions Vote, and not to the Vote of the Ministry of Shipping. I do not wish to anticipate any statement I shall have to make on the Estimates for the coming year, but I think, in view of this large sum of money which I am asking for from the Appropriations-in-Aid, I ought to state what are the probable receipts for this last year, 1919–20. I should point out that the actual amount estimated for the sale of the ships during this financial year in the original Estimate was £49,000,000, but the largest increase will be owing to the earnings of ships due to the causes which I have stated.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the Estimates to be laid. Are we to understand that these Estimates will be laid in the full sense of the term which we are accustomed to associate with the ordinary Department? I understand that it will be the first time the Ministry of Shipping has laid an Estimate.

Colonel WILSON: The Estimates were laid last year. Full Estimates for the Ministry of Shipping were laid for the first time in May of last year, and they will be laid this year.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I had forgotten.

Colonel WILSON: With regard to the earnings of ships, those have increased, as compared with the sum in the original Estimate, by something like £54,000,000, owing to the causes which I have already stated, namely, the earnings of ex-enemy tonnage and the fact that the release from control or requisition has not been as speedy as was anticipated in the original Estimate. The recoveries from Dominions and Allies are estimated in the original Estimate at £12,000,000, but the probable receipts for this year will be £18,000,000, making a total of surplus receipts over the Estimates of some £61,000,000. I have received a request, and I think it is quite reasonable, that, if possible, in future Estimates for the Ministry of Shipping there shall be included a Profit and Loss Account in connection with the vessels employed in commercial trade. I am in entire sympathy with that request. I can only say this to-night, that we are endeavouring to carry that out, and to present such a commercial balance-sheet to the House in respect of the commercial trading of the ships requisitioned by the Ministry of Shipping. It has not been possible to do it in the past, in the first place, because, during the War, when the Ministry of Shipping practically had under requisition the whole of the British mercantile marine, it was employed practically, if not entirely, on Government services, and it would have been impossible to have estimated in any way what were the commercial freights in order to present a balance-sheet. Secondly, it would have involved the employment of an enormous staff which really was not justifiable under the circumstances. I am supported in that by the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure which carefully went into this question, and said that, in view of the circumstances and of the difficulty in presenting any such commercial account, the course which had been adopted was justified. But it will be done in the forthcoming Estimates. I am only asking for this Token Vote for the reasons I have explained to the Committee, and in order to get the right to appropriate this further sum of £19,500,000 so as to pay the expenses of running the enemy ships, and for certain other purposes.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £10.
The interesting statement we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary will only have whetted the appetite of the Committee for more information concerning the enemy ships which are being managed by us. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us how many of these vessels we have.

Colonel WILSON: I said 240.

Mr. HOLMES: I am sorry I did not catch the figure. I understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these 240 vessels are running under Blue Book rates, which presumably means the new directed rates, and, if so, these vessels must be running at a considerable profit, and that profit is being accredited to the enemy account. The Committee will be interested to know the amount of profit that is being made by these 240 vessels. Probably, if one bears in mind what is being done by our own shipowners at the present time, an 8,000 ton vessel will be making from £ 1,500 to £2,000 profit per month. Surely the Committee are entitled to know what the profit is going to amount to, and bow much will be accredited to the enemy account. I want also to ask the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to other requisitioned vessels whether they are all being run on the same rates, or whether some of them are being handed over to the Wool or Wheat Commission at what we may call cost price, which really has the effect of reducing the price of the wool or wheat or whatever it is is purchased by the Government. In particular I would like to ask whether any of the requisitioned vessels have been handed over to the Navy, or are carrying coal for the Navy without any profit at all, and not at the ordinary rates. The effect of that would be, of course, that the Navy would be getting its coal at the expense of the Appropriation-in-Aid which should go to the Ministry of Shipping; in other words, the Navy is not paying fair commercial rates for shipping services.
I want to ask also how the management of the enemy vessels has been arranged for. We understand the various shipowners throughout the country have had these boats handed over to them for the purpose of managing them. Is it not the fact that a number of shipowners took advantage of the scarcity and consequent
high value of ships during the War to sell the whole of their fleets to secure their money in cash and to go out of business? Have any of them been given these ships to manage to the disadvantage of shipowners who would like to have had the management of them, and who have kept on their jobs, and have not sold out, but have continued their work in the mercantile marine? With regard to this item for the hire and running of the enemy ships, is it not the fact that the men who are managing the ships are themselves financing them, and finding the money for coal, wages and other running expenses, and at the same time collecting the freights, rendering an account to the Ministry of Shipping? If that is the case, why does the Ministry require any money at all for financing the boats? If they are being run at a profit, and if the managers of the vessels finance them, the Ministry have only to receive the profits at the end of the month.
There is one other point to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee. It is that the appropriation-in-aid includes the purchase money received by the Ministry of Shipping for the sale of standard ships built by the nation. I want to suggest that this is a thoroughly bad financial principle. During the War we built a number of standard ships, and we borrowed the money for building them. Now we sell those ships, and we use the money we receive in respect of them not to pay off the loans we raised in order to build them, but for the purpose of revenue. Supposing a shipping company did that. A shipping company, let us assume, built certain ships and borrowed the money, and a year or two later sold the ships and credited the sum received to its profit and loss account instead of using it to pay off its loan. If any shipping company published a balance sheet like that, the directors and auditors would render themselves liable to gaol. Yet this is the system of finance which the Government adopt. Let me put it in another way. A Select Committee is sitting for the purpose of considering the taxation of War wealth. It is obvious that if the Committee reports in favour of such a thing the profits on the sale of ships during the War will largely come under it. It is not for anyone to say whether the scheme suggested by the Inland Revenue will be recommended by the Select Committee, but I think one can go as far as to say that the
Select Committee, the officials of the Inland Revenue, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that the produce of that must be specifically earmarked for the reduction of debt. The same thing applies exactly to the Ministry of Shipping. I could understand the Parliamentary Secretary saying we have made, so much profit on the sale of our shipping, and that particular profit might be taken into revenue. That would be justifiable in a commercial undertaking, but for the whole of the purchase money of these ships to be credited to revenue instead of being specifically earmarked for the repayment of debt is an utterly unsound financial principle.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want first of all to enforce the argument used by the hon. Member (Mr. Holmes). We on the Labour Benches are being perpetually charged with being guilty of unsound finance. One of the objections that is always being raised by the Front Bench opposite to a levy upon capital is that the money raised by that levy would not be allocated, as it ought to be, solely to the repayment of debt, and yet here is the Government performing exactly that unsound operation. They are taking money which they know ought to be allocated to the repayment of the debt incurred for building these ships, and they are using it as revenue in order to reduce taxation and to make us believe that we are balancing income and expenditure, when in fact we are doing nothing of the sort. The first thing we have to insist on is to have a clear understanding as to how much of this Appropriation-in-Aid is due to the sale of ships, and how much is due to the receipts under the Liner Requisition scheme. It is monstrous that the Government should lump in one item £19,500,000 and not give the House any information whatever as to how much of that should properly be charged to revenue and how much to writing down capital. The Ministry of Shipping seems to be anxious to conceal facts, but it is their duty to explain the facts, and when we know how much is being camouflaged as revenue, when it is really the sale of Government property, we shall better be able to judge the Budget which is shortly to be introduced. On these Benches we object further to the sale of these Government ships altogether. As the country is at present, we understand, making sub-
stantial profits on the running of these ships, we think the sale might be postponed and the Department might continue to run them at a profit, and then the profits will properly be part of the revenue of the country and would be a very welcome help in time of trouble to the taxpayer.
But I am even more interested in the other part of the Vote. The additional running charges of the enemy vessels amount to £19,500,000. As I understood the Parliamentary Secretary, that is the cost to the Government of running the vessels. Then we pay to the enemy account the Blue Book rates for chartering the vessel, that is in addition to the £19,500,000 and the profits go not to the enemy account but to the account of the Shipping Department. Is that so? Does the profit over the Blue Book rate go to the Government or to the enemy?

Colonel WILSON: The enemy is entitled to credit for the hire of the vessel on the basis of the Blue Book rates less the cost of repairs at the time of handing over. The balance is not paid to the late enemy but to the Treasury account where it is credited to the late enemy against the expenditure for which he is liable.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But who gets the profit over and above the Blue Book rate? I presume the Government is making some profit on the running of the ships. Where does that appear, and why does it not more than cover the cost of running the vessel? I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman said we were making a profit of £58,000,000 a year on running the ships. Where does that appear, and why is it not used as an Appropriation-in-Aid instead of in this account for the sale of Government vessels? The hon. Member (Mr. Holmes) thought the whole of the profits went to the Treasury for setting off against the enemy account, but the Parliamentary Secretary says this profit goes to us. Where is it? Why does it not appear in this account as a per-contra against the cost of running the vessel. We have at present a large fleet belonging to the Government bringing in profits. We are asked to vote £9,500,000 for the cost of running them, and instead of that being balanced by the profits it is balanced partly by the sale of ships and partly by additional rates under the Liner Requisition Scheme, which is not part of the running of the enemy ships. What we really want to
have in the case of this Vote is a balance sheet showing the definite profit and loss of the year's working as well as a capital account showing credit and debit as to the capital value of the ships at the beginning and at the end of the year's trading. Then we should be able to judge whether the Ministry of Shipping really deserved this money or not. As it is, it is possible for any sort of juggling to be going on in the Ministry of Shipping. The ships may really have been run at a loss, and the loss may be made good by the sale of ships which certainly ought to appear on the capital account. We are entitled to have further details than we have at present. In the first place, what percentage of this £19,500,000 is for the sale of ships which ought to appear as a reduction of National Debt instead of Revenue, and what part is profit on running the ships to be set off against the £19,500,000 additional cost of running them?

10.0 P.M.

Commander Viscount CURZON: I rise to put a few questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping I have seen it stated in the daily Press in the last few days that on the Tyne there are a very large number of ships lying idle. Can he say whether these ships are under his Department, and if so can he give the Committee any information as to the cause of a large number of ships lying idle? I should like to ask whether all the enemy ships that were due to us have been handed over, and what is the average size of the ships handed over, if it is possible to give us the figures. He said that certain ships have been handed over to the Disposal Board for disposal, and that they consist of certain small craft. Can he tell us the smallest sized craft and the largest ship which has been handed over to the Disposal Board? In regard to the "River Clyde," can he give the House any information as to its sale? How came it that a ship with its historic associations was put up for sale and was actually sold to an alien firm in an alien country? When you have a credit account for a very large sum and when the expenses of the Department are enormous, it is ridiculous to sell a ship with these great associations to an alien firm for so small a sum. I, in common with a great many others, would far rather have seen that ship sunk in deep water than it should have been handed over to an alien firm.
I was interested to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) speaking for Members who sit on those Benches, wanting to see the Ministry of Shipping continued. My recollection of proceedings on Standing Committee C. while the Ministry of Shipping was being discussed was that the continuance of the Ministry of Shipping was very much criticised by Members who sit on those Benches and who generally agree with the hon. and gallant Member.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have no control over them.

Sir W. RAEBURN: Perhaps I may be able to give the Committee information on a subject on which so many of them are in considerable ignorance. In the first place, let me deal with the management of the Government vessels that have been handed over. My firm have had the management of several of these ships, and it is not at all a lucrative job. I do not think anyone would have taken over the management of the ships for the more fees that they got out of them. The ship owners of the country took them over because it was considered to be a patriotic thing to manage the ships, even if they got no recompense whatever. A great many of these ships were no acquisition to British shipping, and the Government did a very good thing in getting rid of them at the present time when prices are high. They might certainly have kept them for another 12 months and made fairly good profits out of them for that time, but I think that they would have lost more by holding them than by selling them at present. I do not want to cast any slight on the builders, but many of these ships were built in very exceptional circumstances and in places where they had never built vessels of this size and description before, and we know that many of them caused a great deal of trouble and expense. Therefore, while reasons can be advanced that the ships should have been held, I do think that in the majority of cases it was a good thing for the Government to get rid of them. These vessels are not being treated at the righest rates of pay, and are being used, as far as possible, by the Government on what are called restricted voyages carrying Government cargoes. Take the River Plate. The rate until lately was 62s. 6d. for British vessels carrying cargoes, while the rate in the
open market was 200s. I do not know, and will be very glad to hear, the destination of the money that was realised by the sale of these ships. I think that we shall find, when the promised balance sheet is given, that it will show us all these items, both in debits and credits. As regards finance the hon. Member opposite asked what need to ask for all this money now? Do not the managers of all the ships do all the finance and deal with the wages and pay for everything? What does the Government want this money for? He would want to be a strong financial manager to be able to launch into all these expenses and lie out of his money indefinitely. Does the House realise the price of bunker coal at present—£6 in this country and anything up to £10 abroad? Think of getting in, say, 8,000 tons. Whenever we get information that a vessel is on the way—and we generally can tell to a day when it is due—we send a pro forma account to the Government and get payments on account, often up to the full point, but, generally speaking, about 10 per cent. less. Managers render monthly accounts for wages, balances, etc., and get from the Government very punctually each month a very large sum as a payment on account. There is, in present conditions, an enormous advance in prices throughout the world. First, take your disbursals at the port of loading. You have got to make monthly advances to your crews. You have an enormous coal bill. You have the payments to the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal.

Mr. HOLMES: Is it not a fact that when a ship is on time charter the hire is paid a month in advance at the beginning of the month?

Sir W. RAEBURN: In the case of all vessels which my firm has managed for the Government they have not been on a time charter They have been carrying Government cargoes of wheat, sugar, timber and coal, and I have never known a single instance in the case of my firm of vessels being on a time charter. There is an enormous output for which the Government must come to the House and ask for an advance. The whole of this policy of Government control has been in the interests of the country. We had a discussion in the House a few nights ago, and I am sorry to say that some hon.
Members on the other side seemed to regard the shipowner with suspicion. They seemed to think that there was something very suspicious indeed in a shipowner advocating continuance of the control, that there must be some ulterior motive, and that the shipowner must be making more money under control. I frankly state that if we were free of control we could very greatly increase our profits. The reason for continuing the control is that we realise that on commodities like wheat and sugar and such things it would not do to have freights soaring to the heights to which they might soar if control were entirely removed. The Government have kept the control at a minimum scale. The rates of freight from America have fallen below the restriction, so that the Government can let restriction go entirely. While this shipping problem is a very complicated question, speaking as a shipowner whose vessels have been conscribed almost throughout the War, I say that of all the Departments of the Government which can take credit for what they have done I think the shipping control is the first. When we get the balance sheet of this great concern and see the results of what it has done through all these momentous years, it will be surprising if it has not traded at a profit. Is there any other Department which has the same record to show? This discussion has provided an opportunity that I have long desired, in that it has enabled me to inform the House on some points on which I am sure they were wanting knowledge. I believe, speaking from some knowledge, that a slump in shipping is not very far off. Some hon. Members have said that we are suffering from a scarcity of shipping. We are not. There is more shipping in the world now than when the War commenced—I think some 2,000,000 tons. It is enough for all the nation's wants if we can only clear the congestion on the railways. I would repeat that I think the Controller would have made a very great mistake if, for the sake of making some extra profit in the present year, he had kept the steamers which have been referred to, many of them built in Canada and America, instead of doing what any private owner would have done, namely, getting rid of them at the enormous price which we have been able to obtain.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sure the Committee is full of sympathetic commisera-
tion for my hon. Friend in the picture he has drawn of the woes of the shipowner.

Sir W. RAEBURN: I did not say anything about the shipowner's woes.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not for one moment dispute the patriotism of the very important industrial class to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, but I want to make plain to the Members of the Committee who have just come in what the object of the reduction was. The object was to draw the attention of the Committee to the unsound finance which is apparently favoured in this Department as in others. Yesterday we had the question of the Ministry of Agriculture where a total sum of £809,800 was reduced to £10 by bringing in the sales of tractors and implements of machinery, that is capital expenditure set out as revenue. Here we have another example in the Ministry of Shipping, which I must freely and gladly acknowledge was one of the best managed of the Government Departments during the War. My hon. Friend (Mr. Holmes) who spoke on this subject cannot be accused of ignorance of the question of the difference between capital and revenue, and how capital realisation should be dealt with. The idea of applying capital realisation in your balance sheet to cover expenditure would be objectionable in a private firm, but it is still more objectionable in the case of a Government Department. This is the way in which the real expenditure of the nation is being hidden.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Like Whittaker Wright.

Sir D. MACLEAN: You will never really get to the bottom of what things cost in this way. Obviously capital realisation should go against your borrowing and let the revenue and expenses stand on their own feet, and then we should know the real difference. As a protest which we wish once again to make against this system, which is a cloak adopted by every Department to cover up extravagance, I shall vote for the reduction.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry to appear in any way as a critic of the hon. and Gallant Gentleman who speaks for the Government because he makes most charming speeches in intro-
ducing the Estimates. I do not understand part of them, but I am quite sure that is not his fault. I wish to draw attention to the sale of brand new ships to foreigners and ships built during the War with superior accommodation and very well built. In the autumn of last year, speaking from memory, I was told in a reply to a question that 112 of these ships owned by the Government had been sold to foreign nations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will correct me if the number is wrong. Yesterday the hon. Member from the West Toxteth (Mr. Houston) asked about the steamship "War Charger," of 5,700 tons gross, built in 1918, and sold to a Greek buyer. This means that this ship will be run with a crew of Levantines at prices, owing to cheap labour and everything being skimped, that we cannot possibly compete with. It is going to be run by Greek shipowners in the Levant, and it is going to cut out our ships from the trade. Not only is national wealth being sold in a most reckless manner, but it is being sold to our direct competitors, who compete with us unfairly by sweating labour and running their ships on the cheap, and here we have many hundreds of English sea captains and seamen out of work in all our ports who cannot get ships, and are leaving the sea in consequence. I think it is lamentable.
I am sorry I could not understand the point about the Blue Book rates and the German ships. As far as I can gather, under the Peace Terms we take over these German ships and we pay Blue Book rates for them. We deduct from that the cost of repairs and running expenses, and anything that is over we take. I take it that that is the arrangement, but the point is that £19,500,000 is wanted for running these ships, and it seems to me that it wants a little more explanation. Freights are very high, these ships are being managed by very patriotic shipowners for love of their country—and I am sure they are doing it very efficiently—and I cannot understand why these ships are not making a large profit and why the Government should ask for this large sum.

Commander BELLAIRS: I think the four hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken from those Benches made a very large assumption in assuming that the bulk of the £19,500,000 comes from
the sale of ships. Probably a very small sum comes from that source and very large sums are paid over to the Treasury for the reduction of debt. But anyhow, if it were done, although it would be unsound finance to balance revenue by such a means, it is a very old means in the procedure of Governments. The Navy has done it for years and years by the sale of old ships, and really it is very much the same method when we use our death duties for revenue purposes.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should like to say a word on the question of accounting. I am in complete agreement as a general principle with the views which have been enunciated by several hon. Members, and I think a clear distinction ought to be drawn between capital and revenue; but where I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) has gone wrong is this, that I think this would be a perfectly proper entry in these accounts. If hon. Members will take the trouble to refer to the main Estimates they would see that under Sub-head K is an item which is expressly headed "Purchase and building of vessels." On the one side of the Estimates you have the item, "Purchase and Building of Vessels," and, therefore, I submit that it is perfectly proper on the other side of the account to bring in as Appropriations-in-Aid the amount received from the sale of ships. As a matter of strict accountancy, I think it is important that we should do what we can to keep the Government strictly up to the mark in these matters, but where there is a proper explanation as to the accountancy, I think it ought to be given to the Committee.

Colonel WILSON: I have been asked a very large number of questions, and I will endeavour to answer them; but if I deal with other questions than those which affect the main question, on which a reduction of this Vote is moved, I am sure my hon. Friends will understand me. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked me about the sale of ships to foreigners. As a matter of fact, there have been a large number of sales to foreigners of ships built to Government account. The number of those built in the United Kingdome is 104, and the number built
abroad 101. But these sales have been mainly in liquidation of obligations to our Allies under definite commitments which the Government had entered into for services rendered during the War, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that no one is more anxious than I am to see that no ships are sold abroad more than is absolutely essential, or necessary, or advisable in the national interest, because I realise just as well as he does that the effect of a ship being sold abroad, especially if in commission in these waters, means throwing out of work a certain number of officers and men of the Mercantile Marino. Two cases will illustrate my point. The hon. Member for West Toxteth (Mr. Houston) put a question the other day on the subject of the sale of the "War Charger" to Greeks, and asked why the "War Charger" had been sold to Greeks, and permission had been refused for the sale of a ship called the "Clan Lamont." That was a question very difficult to settle, but I assure the Committee that every one of these questions as regards the transfer of ships to a foreign flag receives the personal consideration of the Shipping Controller, and in this particular case of the "War Charger," the ship, which had been built in Vancouver, cost a great deal more than ships built in this country. Speaking from memory, she actually cost £320,000. For reasons, which perhaps shipowners can explain better than I can, it was impossible to get anything like that sum for it in this country, even within £100,000 of it. In fact, one British owner would not give the Ministry of Shipping that amount. We received an offer of £350,000 for this ship, and, in view of the fact that we could not get anything like the amount she cost from British owners, we felt we should not be justified, having due regard to the state of the Treasury and the taxpayer, in doing otherwise. Then we come to the case of the "Clan Lamont." This was a case where a British firm wanted to transfer her to a foreign flag, and again we took into consideration all these questions, and it was thought most inadvisable, as my right hon. Friend has always thought, to transfer unless it was really in the interests of the, nation, as it was not in this particular case.
In reply to the question put by the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea, one felt in respect of the ship in question
—the River Clyde—proper sentiment, and if it had been possible to have brought this ship back to England it would have been done, but the cost was really prohibitive. It was only a shell-riddled hull, and there were no engines. She had been brought back to Malta, but it would have been quite impossible to bring her through the Bay of Biscay without the expenditure of a very large sum of money in order, at any rate, to make her seaworthy. The cost of towage alone would have run to something between £20,000 and £30,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not have left her at Malta?"] That was considered, but we thought we were hardly justified in not, after all, selling her for the very considerable sum of money we got. My Noble Friend also alluded to the question of the number of ships in the Tyne. I do not know whether I shall be quite in order in dealing with the condition of the ports under a Supplementary Estimate, but one question I should like to just touch upon—there are a large number of ships in the Tyne. Only 12 per cent. are British. The Minister of Shipping is doing everything in his power to reduce the congestion at the ports. He has sent a very-large number of ships from the Tyne in ballast to foreign countries to get cargoes of raw material for the industries of this country.
I have been asked about the vessels handed over to the Disposals Board. Those we have handed over to that Board for sale include tugs, launches, barges, yachts, etc. Speaking broadly, the dividing line is about 300 tons gross register. Then as to enemy ships due to us, those allocated to us under the Armistice conditions have been handed over, and we have been using them. There are a certain number yet under repair, and building, and for other reasons, which have not been handed over to the Associated Powers, but the Reparation Commission is now sitting in London and dealing with this matter of allocation. I need hardly go into the questions put by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, as my hon. Friend, the Member for Dumbarton, has already said a word or two upon that subject. But I should like to point out that, in selecting managers for ex-enemy ships, great care has been taken to place them in the hands of old-established and responsible shipowners. They have been
distributed throughout the Kingdom as fairly as possible. They have not been given, as a rule, to people who have not any steamers of their own, unless their ships have been lost owing to enemy action. In one or two cases—but only one or two—they have been given to managers who are not in possession of other steamers at the present time, but these are men who rendered us signal service during the War. On the question of the remuneration of these managers, I think there is a complete misapprehension on the part of hon. Members who have spoken. That remuneration is not so high as to encourage anybody to take these ships over for the amount of money they are going to get out of it. My hon. Friend will see from the circular which we issued with regard to the management of the ships that the remuneration is not large, considering all the charges which shipowners have to bear. I would also point out that the running expenses are debited to the Vote in gross and the gross amounts are credited through the Appropriations-in-Aid. My hon. Friend then dealt with the main question which is before the Committee at the present time. Perhaps that was not clear enough in the statement that I made, but there is no intention whatever of concealing any facts as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I quite agree that it would be a very bad principle if what has been suggested by my hon. Friend, the Member for Derbyshire, were being done in this Estimate; and I can assure him that nothing of the sort is being done. I am afraid that there may be a little misunderstanding, due perhaps to the form of the Estimates themselves. The description of the Appropriations-in-Aid in the footnote is a general description and does not mean to imply that the proceeds from the sale of ships is to be brought in to reduce the additional sum of £19,500,000. The additional gross expenditure for which authority is asked is £19,500,000. Of this sum about £12,000,000 may be taken to represent the running expenses and repairs of ex-enemy ships. My hon. Friend says that we have made a profit of £54,000,000. That is the total receipts from all the ex-enemy ships and other ships under requisition. Against that has to be put the running expenses
for which I am asking this sum of £19,500,000.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has anything else to be put against it?

Colonel WILSON: I was coming to that. Of this, £12,000,000 may be taken as running expenses and repairs of ex-enemy ships. Between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 spent upon repairs is chargeable against the enemy, and in any case the expenditure has enhanced the value of the ships and will be recovered in the price realised for the ships. After all, the taking of the sale proceeds in aid of revenue is a Treasury matter, but there is nothing whatever in this Vote and there never has been in any Vote of the Ministry of Shipping by which we have taken capital and shown it as income. But it will be seen that we are asking to take out of the Appropriations in Aid £19,500,000, whereas our receipts, as I said in my original speech, will come to at least £54,000,000 more than was anticipated. So there is no question of our using our capital instead of using our revenue.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But does not all the gross profit go to revenue as well as the sale of ships?

Colonel WILSON: No, any excess is paid to the Treasury. It is shown as revenue and must not be taken as money for capital expenditure in any account. I ought to explain, in regard to this note, that there should have been against "appropriation in aid" "receipts from ex-enemy ships and additional receipts under the liner requisition scheme," which would have made it considerably more plain.

Mr. HOLMES: Does not the money received during the year ending 5th April, 1920, for the sale of ships, go into the national revenue for the year as against the national expenditure?

Colonel WILSON: I cannot say what the Treasury will do. It will not go into the Ministry of Shipping Estimates as revenue as against expenditure, but it is quite impossible to anticipate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to say. That is entirely a Treasury matter. There will probably go into the 1920 Estimates the expenditure on shipbuilding in the same year, which it would be quite fair to set off against the capital
sum taken from the proceeds of the sale of the ex-enemy ships.

Mr. HOLMES: I quite agree, but the amount from the sale of ships is going to be enormously more than the amount of the building of ships during the present year.

Colonel WILSON: I agree, but the remainder of that money will not be used as appropriation.

Mr. HOLMES: As national revenue?

Colonel WILSON: It will be paid over to the Treasury and will be shown. No money will be shown as national revenue. I think I may say that there is no intention of using any capital as income. That, I believe, is the point, and if that is so I trust the hon. Gentleman will see fit not to press his Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we be told how much of this £19,500,000 is due to sales, and how much is due to income?

Colonel WILSON: Nothing of the £19,500,000 is due to sales. This £19,500,000 is entirely appropriation in aid, as I explained, from the receipts which we received for the running of the ex-enemy ships.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It says here: "additional receipts from the sale of ships, and other things," and totals £19,500,000. How much of that is from the sale of ships and how much from other sources?

Colonel WILSON: I have tried to explain that nothing is due from the sale of ships. As I pointed out just now, there should have been added to this appropriation in aid "from receipts of running of ex-enemy ships and additional receipts under the Liner Requisition Scheme."

Mr. HOLMES: I am sorry I cannot respond to the appeal of my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw my Amendment. The whole point, as far as I am concerned, is this: The country, during the War years, borrowed money for the purpose of building ships. Now we are selling the ships and, instead of using the proceeds to pay off the loans raised during the War period, we are putting them into the national revenue as against the ordinary national expenditure of the present year. Nothing in what the hon. and gallant
Gentleman has said has denied that. I admit that this probably is not a point for him, but I ventured to give him notice of this, and to tell him I thought it was a point, not for him, but for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. As, however, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury

is not here, we have not had the opportunity of hearing his views on the matter.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 223.

Division No. 39.]
AYES.
[10.47 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Robertson, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton


Briant, Frank
Hayward, Major Evan
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cairns, John
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cape, Thomas
Lunn, William
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Tootill, Robert


Devlin, Joseph
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Donnelly, P.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Entwistle, Major C F.
Onions, Alfred
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Finney, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Redmond, Captain William Archer



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Hogge.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Hood, Joseph


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n. W.)


Armitage, Robert
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Atkey, A. R.
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Baird, John Lawrence
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Baldwin, Stanley
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Hurd, Percy A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Duncannon, Viscount
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Edgar, Clifford B
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Barnett, Major R. W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jephcott, A. R.


Barnston, Major Harry
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Farqubarson, Major A. C.
Kellaway, Frederick George


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Fell, Sir Arthur
Kenyon, Barnet


Betterton, Henry B.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Kidd, James


Bigland, Alfred
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
King, Commander Henry Douglas


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lane-Fox, G. R.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Foreman, Henry
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Forrest, Walter
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Bridgeman, William Clive
France, Gerald Ashburner
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd, George Butler


Britton, G. B.
Galbraith, Samuel
Locker, Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Gardiner, James
Lort-Williams, J.


Bruton, Sir James
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
M' Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Macmaster, Donald


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Green, Albert (Derby)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Butcher, Sir John George
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Gregory, Holman
Macquisten, F. A.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Greig, Colonel James William
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Carr, W. Theodore
Griggs, Sir Peter
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Casey, T. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Morris, Richard


Chadwick, R. Burton
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Morrison, Hugh


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Morrison Bell, Major A. E.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hailwood, Augustine
Mosley, Oswald


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hall, Lieut.-Col, Sir F. (Dulwich)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Murchison, C. K.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Cope, Major Wm.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Neal, Arthur


Courthope, Major George L.
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page
Hills, Major John Waller
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Curzon, Commander viscount
Hinds, John
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Oman, Charles William C.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Simm, M. T.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Sprat, Colonel Sir Alexander
Whitla, Sir William


Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Pulley, Charles Thornton
Stephenson, colonel H. K.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Purchase, H. G.
Stewart, Gershom
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Raeburn, Sir William H.
Sturrock, J. Leng
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Ramsden, G. T.
Sugden, W. H.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Taylor, J.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Rodger, A. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Townley, Maximilian G.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Royden, Sir Thomas
Turton, E. R.
Younger, Sir George


Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Waddington, R.



Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wallace, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Seager, Sir William
Walters, Sir John Tudor
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Seddon, J. A.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)



Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)



Original Question put, and agreed to.

CANALS COMPENSATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Compensation to Canal Companies and Canal Carrie?-s in the United Kingdom arising out of Government Control, and for Advances to Crinan and Caledonian Canals.

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
The original Estimate in this case is £950,000, since when there has been a Supplementary Estimate of £294,500, to which there is now added a further sum of £200,000, making altogether £1,500,000. This Vote also comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport, and the point was made earlier to-night that the Ministry of Transport ought not to ask for these sums of money unless they have first of all determined the policy upon

which they are going to act. The Ministry of Transport can have formed only the most inadequate idea of the steps they are going to take to deal with the canal system if inside twelve months they have to make these separate applications for such large sums of money. There is another instance of the absolute incompetence of this Government to deal with so-called questions of reconstruction. We have been told over and over again that the reason for our high railway rates is that there is no sufficient competition between the railways and other forms of transit, and we have the canals as one of the examples which might be brought into competition, and as the Ministry of Transport have had to ask for three sums in so close a sequence of time, I move to reduce the Vote.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £199,900. be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 223

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rose, Frank H.


Atkey, A. R.
Grundy, T. W.
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Sexton, James


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Briant, Frank
Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Hayward, Major Evan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cairns, John
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Tootill, Robert


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lunn, William
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Devlin, Joseph
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Donnelly, P.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Onions, Alfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Finney, Samuel
Redmond, Captain William Archer
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gaibraith, Samuel
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Hogge and Mr. Nell Maclean.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Robertson, John



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
France, Gerald Ashburner
Oman, Charles William C.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Armitage, Robert
Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Baird, John Lawrence
Goff, Sir R. Park
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Baldwin, Stanley
Green, Albert (Derby)
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Barlow, Sir Montague
Gregory, Holman
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Barnett, Major R. W.
Greig, Colonel James William
Purchase, H. G.


Barnston, Major Harry
Griggs, Sir Peter
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsden, G. T.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Hailwood, Augustine
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Bigland, Alfred
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rodger, A. K.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hills, Major John Waller
Royden, Sir Thomas


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hinds, John
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Britton, G. B.
Hood, Joseph
Seager, Sir William


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Seddon, J. A.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Simm, M. T.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Butcher, Sir John George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jephcott, A. R.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Carr, W. Theodore
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stewart, Gershom


Casey, T. W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Sugden, W. H.


Chadwick, R. Burton
Kellaway, Frederick George
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Kenyon, Barnet
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Clough, Robert
Kidd, James
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Coats, Sir Stuart
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Taylor, J.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cope, Major Wm.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Courthope, Major George L.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Turton, E. R.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Waddington, R.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Lloyd, George Butler
Wallace, J.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Locker, Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Lort-Williams, J.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Macmaster, Donald
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Whitla, Sir William


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Duncannon, Viscount
Macquisten, F. A.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Edgar, Clifford B.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Wilson, Lt. Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Morris, Richard
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Morrison, Hugh
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Mosley, Oswald
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Murchison, C. K.
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Neal, Arthur
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Foreman, Henry
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Younger, Sir George


Forestier-Walker, L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Forrest, Walter
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

MERCANTILE MARINE SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £35,900, be granted to His Majesty, to
defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine,
including Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 37.

Division No. 41.]
AYES.
[11.10 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oman, Charles William C.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Galbraith, Samuel
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Gardiner, James
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Armitage, Robert
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Atkey, A. R.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Baird, John Lawrence
Golf, Sir R. Park
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emit W.


Baldwin, Stanley
Green, Albert (Derby)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Barker, Major Robert H.
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Barlow, Sir Montague
Gregory, Holman
Purchase, H. G.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Greig, Colonel James William
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Griggs, Sir Peter
Ramsden, G. T.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Benn, com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Hailwood, Augustine
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bigland, Alfred
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Rodger, A. K.


Berwick, Major G. O.
Hayward, Major Evan
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Royden, Sir Thomas


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Briant, Frank
Hills, Major John Waller
Seager, Sir William


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hinds, John
Seddon, J. A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Britton, G. B.
Hood, Joseph
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Simm, M. T.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Butcher, Sir John George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stewart, Gershom


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sugden, W. H.


Carr, W. Theodore
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Casey, T. W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Kellaway, Frederick George
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Kenyon, Barnet
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H. Spender
Kidd, James
Taylor, J.


Clough, Robert
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Cope, Major Wm.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Turton, E. R.


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Waddington, R.


Courthope, Major George L.
Lloyd, George Butler
Wallace, J.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lort-Williams, J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Macmaster, Donald
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Whitla, Sir William


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Dewhurst, Lieut,-Commander Harry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Duncannon, Viscount
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Morris, Richard
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Morrison, Hugh
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mosley, Oswald
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Foreman, Henry
Neal, Arthur
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Younger, Sir George


Forrest, Walter
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


France, Gerald Ashburner
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Commander Eyres-Monsell and Mr. Towyn Jones.


NOES.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bromfield, William
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Rose, Frank H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton


Cairns, John
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Devlin, Joseph
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Donnelly, P.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, c.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Onions, Alfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Redmond, Captain William Archer
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hogge and Mr. Neil Maclean.

BANKRUPTCY DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a. Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course

of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for meeting the Deficiency of Income from Fees, &c, for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under the Bankruptcy Act, 1914."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 45.

Division No. 42.]
AYES.
[11.20 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Duncannon, Viscount
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Edgar, Clifford B.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Armitage, Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lloyd, George Butler


Atkey, A. R.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Baird, John Lawrence
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lort-Williams, J.


Baldwin, Stanley
Fell, Sir Arthur
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Barker, Major Robert H.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Macmaster, Donald


Barnett, Major R. W.
Foreman, Henry
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Barnston, Major Harry
Forestier-Walker, L.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Forrest, Walter
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Sell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Macquisten, F. A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
France, Gerald Ashhurner
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Gardiner, James
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Morris, Richard


Bigland, Alfred
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Morrison, Hugh


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Mosley, Oswald


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Murchison, C. K.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Gregory, Holman
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Greig, Colonel James William
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Griggs, Sir Peter
Neal, Arthur


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bruton, Sir James
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hailwood, Augustine
Oman, Charles William C.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ormsoy-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Butcher, Sir John George
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Carr, W. Theodore
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Casey, T. W.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Hills, Major John Waller
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hinds, John
Purchase, H. G.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Clough, Robert
Hood, Joseph
Ramsden, G. T.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n. W.)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Cope, Major Wm.
Hurd, Percy A.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Courthope, Major George L.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jephcott, A. R.
Rodger, A. K.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Royden, Sir Thomas


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Kenyon, Barnet
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kidd, James
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Seager, Sir William


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Seddon, J. A.


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Simm, M. T.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Townley, Maximilian G.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.).


Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Turton, E. R.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Waddington, R.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Steel, Major S. Strang
Wallace, J.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Walters, Sir John Tudor
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Stewart, Gershom
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Sturrock, J. Leng
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sugden, W. H.
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Weston, Colonel John W.
Younger, Sir George


Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)



Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord 6. (Chich'sf'r)
Whitla, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Wigan, Brig Gen. John Tyson
Commander Eyres-Monsell and Mr.


Taylor, J.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Towyn Jones.


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset. W.)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Sexton, James


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Briant, Frank
Hayward, Major Evan
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, w. R. (Wellingborough)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hogge, James Myles
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cairns, John
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Tootaill, Robert


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lunn, William
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Devlin, Joseph
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Donnelly, P.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)



Entwistle, Major C. F.
Onions, Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Galbraith, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Newbould and Colonel


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Redmond, Captain William Archer
Wedgwood.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.

FORESTRY COMMISSION.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That a sum, not exceeding £99,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment

during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for a Grant in Aid of the Forestry Fund."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 213: Noes, 41.

Division No. 43.]
AYES.
[11.30 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Chadwick, R. Burton
Goff, Sir R. Park


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Green, Albert (Derby)


Armitage, Robert
Clough, Robert
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, w.)


Atkey, A. R.
Coals, Sir Stuart
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)


Baird, John Lawrence
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gregory, Holman


Baldwin, Stanley
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Greig, Colonel James William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Griggs, Sir Peter


Barker, Major Robert H.
Cope, Major Wm.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Barlow, Sir Montague
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Courthope, Major George L.
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')


Barnston, Major Harry
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hailwood, Augustine


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy


Betterton, Henry B.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bigland, Alfred
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Boles, Lieut-Colonel D. F.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Duncannon, Viscount
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hills, Major John Waller


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hinds, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Breese, Major Charles E.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hood, Joseph


Bridgeman, William Clive
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hopkins, John W. W.


Britton, G. B.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Hurd, Percy A.


Bruton, Sir James
Foreman, Henry
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Forestier-Walker, L.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.
Forrest, Walter
Jephcott, A. R.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Jodreil, Neville Paul


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
France, Gerald Ashburner
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Butcher, Sir John George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Campion, Lieut-Colonel W. R.
Gardiner, James
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Casey, T. W.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Kenyon, Barnet


Kidd, James
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Sturrock, J. Leng


King, Commander Henry Douglas
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Sugden, W. H.


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Taylor, J.


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Purchase, H. G.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lloyd, George Butler
Ramsden, G. T.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Lort-Williams, J.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Townley, Maximilian G.


M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Turton, E. R.


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
Waddington, R.


McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Wallace, J.


Macmaster, Donald
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Macquisten, F. A.
Rodger, A. K.
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Whitla, Sir William


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Roundel), Colonel R. F.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Morrison, Hugh
Royden, Sir Thomas
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Morrison-Bell, Major A. E.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Wesley, Oswald
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Seager, Sir William
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Murchison, C. K.
Seddon, J. A.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Neal, Arthur
Simm, M. T.
Wood, Sir H K. (Woolwich, West)


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Morris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Younger, Sir George


Oman, Charles William C.
Steel, Major S. Strang



Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Stewart, Gershom
Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton


Briant, Frank
Hayward, Major Evan
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cairns, John
Hogge, James Myles
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Devlin, Joseph
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Donnelly, p.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tootill, Robert


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Galbraith, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Onions, Alfred
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Grundy, T. W.
Redmond, Captain William Archer
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Major Watts Morgan and Mr. Holmes.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,320, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course

of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 43.

Division No. 44.]
AYES.
[11.40 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Coats, Sir Stuart


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Breese, Major Charles E.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)


Atkey, A. R.
Bridgeman, William Clive
Cope, Major Win.


Baird, John Lawrence
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baldwin, Stanley
Britton, G. B.
Courthope, Major George L.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Curzon, Commander Viscount


Barker, Major Robert H.
Brown, Captain D. C.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Bruton, Sir James
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Barnston, Major Harry
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dewhurst, Lieut-Commander Harry


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Dockrell, Sir Maurice


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Butcher, Sir John George
Doyle, N. Grattan


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Duncannon, Viscount


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Casey, T. W.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Bigland, Alfred
Chadwick, R. Burton
Falcon, Captain Michael


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Berwick, Major G. O.
Clough, Robert
Fell, Sir Arthur


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Seager, Sir William


Foreman, Henry
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Seddon, J. A.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lloyd, George Butler
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Forrest, Walter
Lort-Williams, J.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Simm, M. T.


France, Gerald Ashburner
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Gardiner, James
Macmaster, Donald
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Golf, Sir R. Park
Macquisten, F. A.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Green, Albert (Derby)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Stewart, Gershom


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison, Hugh
Sugden, W. H.


Gregory, Holman
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Greig, Colonel James William
Mosley, Oswald
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Griggs, Sir Peter
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'sf'r)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Murchison, C. K.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Taylor, J.


Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Neal, Arthur
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hailwood, Augustine
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Turton, E. R.


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Waddington, R.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Oman, Charles William C.
Wallace, J.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Hills, Major John Waller
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Hinds, John
Peel, Cot. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hood, Joseph
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Whitla, Sir William


Hope, H. (Stirling & Crckm'nn'n, W.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Hopkins, John W. W.
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Purchase, H. G.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hurd, Percy A.
Ramsden, G. T.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Kenyon, Barnet
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Kidd, James
Rodger, A. K.
Younger, Sir George


King, Commander Henry Douglas
Rogers, Sir Hallewell



Lane-Fox, G. R.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Royden, Sir Thomas
Commander Eyres-Monsell and Mr.


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Towyn Jones.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton


Briant, Frank
Hayward, Major Evan
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hogge, James Myles
Sitch, Charles H.


Cairns, John
Holmes, J. Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Donnelly, P.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tootill, Robert


Entwistle, Major C. F.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Galbraith, Samuel
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Captain Redmond and Mr. Devlin.

FRIEXDLY SOCIETIES REGISTRY.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,324, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course

of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 29.

Division No. 45.].
AYES.
[11.50 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Atkey, A. R.
Barker, Major Robert H.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Baird, John Lawrence
Barlow, Sir Montague


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Baldwin, Stanley
Barnett, Major R. W.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Barnston, Major Harry


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Greig, Colonel James William
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Griggs, Sir Peter
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Grundy, T. W.
Purchase, H. G.


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Ramsden, G. T.


Bigland, Alfred
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hailwood, Augustine
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Roberts, Sir s. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Rodger, A. K.


Britton, G. B.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hills, Major John Waller
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hinds, John
Royce, William Stapleton


Bruton, Sir James
Hirst, G. H.
Royden, Sir Thomas


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hood, Joseph
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Seager, Sir William


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Seddon, J. A.


Cairns, John
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Casey, T. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Simm, M. T.


Chadwick, R. Burton.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jephcott, A. R.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Clough, Robert
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stewart, Gershom


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Kenyon, Barnet
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cope, Major Wm.
Kidd, James
Sugden, W. H.


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Courthope, Major George L.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'sf'r)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Taylor, J.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lloyd, George Butler
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Lort-Williams, J.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Doyle, N. Grattan
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Duncannon, Viscount
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
Turton, E. R.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Waddington, R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Macmaster, Donald
Wallace, J.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Macquisten, F. A.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Fitz Roy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Morrison, Hugh
Whitla, Sir William


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Foreman, Henry
Mosley, Oswald
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Forrest, Walter
Murchison, C. K.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Frauds E.
Neal, Arthur
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Galbraith, Samuel
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gardiner, James
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Oman, Charles William C.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Graham D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Green, Albert (Derby)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Mr. Dudley Ward and Lieutenant-Colonel Stanley.


Gregory, Holman
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emit W



NOES.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hayward, Major Evan
Rose, Frank H.


Briant, Frank
Hogge, James Myles
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Holmes, J. Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Devlin, Joseph
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tootill, Robert


Donnelly, P.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Vernon
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Sitch and Lieut-Commander Kenworthy.


Hay day, Arthur
Redmond, Captain William Archer

REGISTRAR GENERAL'S OFFICE, ENGLAND.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course

of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar General of Births, &c."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 219; Noes, 23.

Division No. 46.]
AYES.
[12.0 m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gardiner, James
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Goff, Sir R. Park
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Atkey A. R.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Baird, John Lawrence
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M


Baldwin, Stanley
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gregory, Holman
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Barker, Major Robert H.
Greig, Colonel James William
Purchase, H. G.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Griggs, Sir Peter
Ramsden, G. T.


Barnston, Major Harry
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Grundy, T. W.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H
Richardson, R.(Houghton-le-Spring)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Hailwood, Augustine
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bigland, Alfred
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Rodger, A. K.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Royden, Sir Thomas


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, putney)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hills, Major John Waller
Seager, Sir William


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hinds, John
Seddon, J. A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Britton, G. B.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hood, Joseph
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castleon-T.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Simm, M. T.


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkins, John W. W.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Buchanan, Lieut-Colonel A. L. H.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cairns, John
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stewart, Gershom


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sturrock, J. Leng


Casey, T. W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sugden, W. H.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Chadwick, R. Burton
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Kenyon, Barnet
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)


Clough, Robert
Kidd, James
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Coats, Sir Stuart
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Taylor, J.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Colvin, Brig-General Richard Beale
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Coote, Colin Reith (isle of Ely)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cope, Major Wm.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Tootill, Robert


Courthope, Major George L.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Townley, Maximilian G.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Lloyd, George Butler
Turton, E. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lort-Williams, J.
Waddington, R.


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Wallace, J.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Dewhurst, Lieut-Commander Harry
Macmaster, Donald
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Whitla, Sir William


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Duncannon, Viscount
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Malone, Major p. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Morrison, Hugh
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Foreman, Henry
Neal, Arthur
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Forrest, Walter
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


France, Gerald Ashburner
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Mr. Dudley Ward and Lieutenant.


Fremantte, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oman, Charles William C.
Colonel Stanley.


NOES.


Devlin, Joseph
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sexton, James


Donnelly, P.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hogge, James Myles
Redmond, Captain William Archer
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Holmes, J. Stanley
Rose, Frank H.
Mr. Lunn and Mr. Briant.


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Royce, William Stapleton

OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £105,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the

31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 187: Noes, 41

Division No. 47.]
AYES.
[12.8 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Gardiner, James
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge. Mddx.)


Atkey, A. R.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Baird, John Lawrence
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Baldwin, Stanley
Green, Albert (Derby)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Purchase, H. G.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Gregory, Holman
Ramsden, G. T.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Greig, Colonel James William
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel N.


Barnston, Major Harry
Griggs, Sir Peter
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Benn, Com. Ian H (Greenwich)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Hailwood, Augustine
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rodger, A. K.


Bigland, Alfred
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Royden, Sir Thomas


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Samuel, Samuel (Wdsworth, Putney)


Boyd-Carpenier, Major A.
Hills, Major John Waller
Seager, Sir William


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hinds, John
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hood, Joseph
Simm, M. T.


Britton, G. B.
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hopkins, John W. W
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stewart, Gershom


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sturrock, J. Long


Casey, T. W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sugden, W. H.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Chadwick, R. Burton
Kenyon, Barnet
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Kidd, James
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Clough, Robert
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Turton, E. R.


Cope, Major Wm.
Lort-Williams, J.
Waddington, R.


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Courthope, Major George L.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macmaster, Donald
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Whitla, Sir William


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Dean, Lieut. Commander P. T.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Morrison, Hugh
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Duncannon, Viscount
Murchison, C. K.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Neal, Arthur
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


FitzRoy, Captain Han. E. A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foreman, Henry
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Mr. Towyn Jones and Commander


Forestier-Walker, L.
Oman, Charles William C.
Eyres-Monsell.


Forrest, Walter
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hogge, James Myles
Sitch, Charles H.


Briant, Frank
Holmes, J. Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tootill, Robert


Devlin, Joseph
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wallace, J.


Donnelly, P.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


France, Gerald Ashburner
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Grundy, T. W.
Redmond, Captain William Archer
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton
Major Entwistle and Mr. Charles


Hayward, Major Evan Edwards.
Sexton, James

FISHERY BOARD, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries

and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, including Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays, and certain Special Expenditure in connection with the Purchase and Storage of Pickled Herrings."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 40.

Division No. 48.]
AYES.
[12.17 a.m.


Agg Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Farquharson, Major A. C.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fitz Roy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Macmaster, Donald


Atkey, A. R.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Baird, John Lawrence
Foreman, Henry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James.


Baldwin, Stanley
Forestier-Walker, L.
Macquisten, F. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forrest, Walter
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison, Hugh


Barnston, Major Harry
Gardiner, James
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mosley, Oswald


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Murchison, C. K.


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Green, Albert (Derby)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Betterton, Henry B.
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Neal, Arthur


Bigland, Alfred
Gregory, Holman
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Boles, Lieut-Colonel D. F.
Greig, Colonel James William
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Griggs, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Oman, Charles William C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hailwood, Augustine
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Britton, G. B.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Bruton, Sir James
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Purchase, H. G.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hills, Major John Waller
Ramsden, G. T.


Casey, T. W.
Hinds, John
Raw, Lieutenant, Colonel N.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hood, Joseph
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


dough, Robert
Hopkins, John W. W.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rodger, A. K.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hurd, Percy A.
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Cope, Major Wm.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Royden, Sir Thomas


Courthope, Major George L.
Jephcott, A. R.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Seager, Sir William


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kenyon, Barnet
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Kidd, James
Simm, M. T.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Doyle, N. Grattan
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Duncannon, Viscount
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lort-Williams, J.
Stewart, Gershom


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Falcon, Captain Michael
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
Sugden, W. H.


Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Wallace, J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Talbot, Rt. Han. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Whitla, Sir William
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Williams, Lt. Com. C. (Tavistock)
Younger, Sir George


Townley, Maximilian G.
Willlims, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Turton, E. R.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Mr. Dudley Ward and Lieutenant-


Waddington, R.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Colonel Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton


Briant, Frank
Hayward, Major Evan
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hogge, James Myles
Sitch, Charles H.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Devlin, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Donnelly, P.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster,-Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Redmond, Captain William Archer



Guest, J. (York. W. R., Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Tootill and Mr. MacVeagh.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £47,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief

Secretary in Dublin and London (including Grants for the Higher Education of ex-officers, &c.), of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums and of the Irish Public Health Council, and Expenses under the Inebriates Acts."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes 39.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[12.26 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Courthope, Major George L.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Hood, Joseph


Archer-Shee, Lieut-Colonel Martin
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)


Atkey, A. R.
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Baird, John Lawrence
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Baldwin, Stanley
Dean, Lieut-Commander p. T.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Doyle, N. Grattan
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Barlow, Sir Montague
Duncannon, viscount
Jephcott, A. R.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Barnston, Major Harry
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Sell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Falcon, Captain Michael
Kenyon, Barnet


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Kidd, James


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
King, Commander Henry Douglas


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lane-Fox, G. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Foreman, Henry
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Bigland, Alfred
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Forrest, Walter
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lort-Williams, J.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gardiner, James
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macmaster, Donald


Bridgeman, William Clive
Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Brittain, Sir Harry
Goff, Sir R. Park
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Britton, G. B.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Macquisten, F. A.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Bruton, Sir James
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Gregory, Holman
Morrison, Hugh


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Greig, Colonel James William
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Griggs, Sir Peter
Mosley, Oswald


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Murchison, C. K.


Casey, T. W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hailwood, Augustine
Neal, Arthur


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Colonel J. R P. (Finchley)


Clough, Robert
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter).


Coats, Sir Stuart
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Bole
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Oman, Charles William C.


Cope, Major Wm.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Hinds, John
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Seager, Sir William
Turton, E. R.


Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil w.
Seddon, J. A.
Waddington, R.


Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Wallace, J.


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Pulley, Charles Thornton
Simm, M. T.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Purchase, H. G.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Raeburn, Sir William H.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Whitla, Sir William


Ramsden, G. T.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
Stewart, Gershom
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Sturrock, J. Leng
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Sugden, W. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Rodger, A. K.
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Younger, Sir George


Royden, Sir Thomas
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)



Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Townley, Maximilian G.
Mr. Dudley Ward and Lieut.-Col. Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayward, Major Evan
Royce, William Stapleton


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Briant, Frank
Hogge, James Myles
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bromfield, William
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Donnelly, P.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Tootill, Robert


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


France, Gerald Ashburner
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypooll
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hartshorn, Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.
Capt. Redmond and Mr. Devlin.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION, IRELAND.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the "Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants in Aid, and the Expenses of the Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland, and certain Special Services in connection with Food Production.

The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the Chairman stated that he thought the Ayes had it. On his decision being challenged it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed. He accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he, declared the Ayes had it.

Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. This is quite a new decision to me, and of course I do not for a moment wish to challenge what you have done, but are those who are in a minority not entitled, even after a display of passion in the Committee, to a Division in the Lobby?
All I am asking is for an opinion on the matter, so that we may know.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will be good enough to read Standing Order No. 30, as amended a year ago, he will see that I was acting under that Order.

Mr. DEVLIN: Mr Whitley, I should like to know if you cannot give some reason to the Committee, why, on a Vote that obviously would have included nearly one-quarter of the Members of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "One-tenth,"] —you should have refused to allow a Division to be taken?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will read the Standing Order he will see that I am using my discretion according to the Standing Order of the House.

Captain REDMOND: I rise on a point of Order, Mr. Whitley May I ask why you have chosen this particular Vote of those—[Interruption]—May I ask why when, on another Vote which was about to take place when you were in an equally good position to judge the numbers of hon. Members who said "Aye," and the numbers of those who said "No," you did not take a similar course to the
course you have just taken in regard to an Irish Vote?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: [Interruption]—I rise, Mr. Whitley, on a point of Order.

The CHAIRMAN: I think I have already replied to the point of Order. It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair under the Standing Order, and under that Standing Order I have acted.

Mr. HOGGE: I wish to raise another point of Order. As I said before, I think we are all in this spirit, that we never challenge a decision of the Chair so long as we understand that decision. This is a new Standing Order, and I may say that, for hon. Members who have recently joined this House, as well as for some of the older Members, this is new to us as well as to them, and the point may as well be settled once and for all. I want to point out this: The Standing Order says
Mr. Speaker or the Chairman may, after the lapse of two minutes, if, in his opinion, the Division is unnecessarily claimed, take the Vote of the House or the Committee.
The point I want to put is this: To keep this House sitting it is necessary to have 40 Members. When you asked us to stand up, as a matter of fact, all of us who had been voting were not in the House, as is usual when this House is taking a Division. The average Members do not all come into the House when the Question is put; many of them are in the Lobby. What I want respectfully to submit is this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—so long, at any rate, as there are enough of us to constitute a House by ourselves we are entitled, on a matter of business such as financial Votes which have not been discussed, to record our decision against the decision of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has misunderstood, or misread, the Standing Order. If the hon. Member will read it again, he will see that the Standing Order says, "is unnecessarily claimed." I took the sense of the Committee accordingly to the Standing Order by asking one side and then the other to rise in their places, and then I declared the Division according to my view and the opinion of the Committee.

Mr. MacVEAGH: On a further point of Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether there is any precedent for acting as you have acted to-night. I wish also to ask whether this is the first time in the history
of this Parliament that the principle has been established not only that vast sums of money may be voted without discussion, but, further, that vast sums of money may be voted without Members being allowed to record their votes against them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ten pounds!"] I respectfully ask whether there is any precedent for such action as you have taken to-night.?

The CHAIRMAN: The Standing Order was only passed this time last year in its present form. This is the first occasion on which the necessity has arisen.

Mr. BRACE: I wish to ask, Sir, is there any machinery under which we, a minority of this House, would be entitled to record, in some form or other, our protest against the Vote. Is there any machinery under which our names can be taken? It seems to me—

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the Standing Order is the act of the House. I am merely the servant of the House in acting on the Standing Order.

Mr. BRACE: In what way can we enter our protest against your ruling, Sir; because we feel that it is not quite doing justice to the minority in this House?

The CHAIRMAN: There is a well known Rule that that can only be done by way of a Motion after due notice has been given.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I wish to ask you now, Sir, whether you propose to continue that ruling with regard to all the millions that are to be voted to-night?

The CHAIRMAN: This is not the time to ask me that. The hon. Member will see when the time comes. I have allowed a great deal of latitude.

Mr. HOLMES: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: I have made it clear that I have listened to the points of Order within the limits which I think proper, and I cannot accept further points of Order challenging my decision in the matter.

Captain REDMOND: I want to ask you, Sir—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—whether your ruling to-night has the approval of the Leader of the I House, whether the Government approve
or disapprove of the action you have taken?

The CHAIRMAN: I will answer that last point. It must be understood that I cannot allow further challenging of my decision.

Captain REDMOND: What does the Leader of the House say?

The CHAIRMAN: I have not asked the Leader of the House. It is my duty to carry out the orders of the House.

Mr. DEVLIN: I do not want to question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order"]—I have been in the House, all night when the Coalition Liberals were at the bar. I do not question your ruling, but I want your decision on this point. We are the representatives of the people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—free and un-trammelled, without coupons. You are voting without discussion millions of public money here to-night. There are some of us here in the interests of our constituents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which!" and "Not you!"]

The CHAIRMAN: May I ask hon. Members to leave this matter to the Chair?

Mr. DEVLIN: I am sorry to intervene at all in the Debate, but the point I want cleared up is this: When the public come to know, as they must know, what we are voting on these questions of public expenditure—I want, to know what safeguard you offer to the constituencies as to the attitude which the Members of this House take upon these precise sums of money on which we are called to vote. By the process of putting the decision you have given it is obviously clear that our constituents cannot secure that information.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is doing what he said he would not do. He is arguing.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am not arguing. I simply suggest that if you call upon us to stand up there should be some record of the fact—some record of how we have recorded our vote on these vital matters.

The CHAIRMAN: It was for that very reason that the Standing Order was amended by the House by hon. Members themselves. They must remember that I am simply carrying out the duties imposed upon me as best I can by the Standing Order. They must not throw upon me the onus of the Order of which I am the interpreter. I am doing my duty as best I can.

Mr. HAYDAY: What becomes of the minority rights?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is there any precedent for refusing to allow a vote to be taken on a money vote? I want an answer to that question.

The CHAIRMAN: I have answered the hon. Member. This is the first time that the Standing Order, as amended, has been put in operation.

Mr. DEVLIN: I hope it is the last.

CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD FOR IRELAND.

Motion made and Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be grunted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920 for the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, including sundry Grants in Aid.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 186: Noes, 38.

Division No. 50.]
AYES.
[12.55 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Clough, Robert


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Berwick, Major G. O.
Coats, Sir Stuart


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cockerill, Brigadier, General G. K.


Atkey, A. R.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Baird, John Lawrence
Bridgeman, William Clive
Cope, Major Wm.


Baldwin, Stanley
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall. St. Ives)


Ballour, George (Hampstead)
Britton, G. B.
Courthope, Major George L.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Brown, Captain D. C.
Curzon, Commander Viscount


Barlow, Sir Montague
Bruton, Sir James
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)


Barnston, Major Harry
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dean, Lieut.-Commander p. T.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H (Devizes)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Casey, T. W.
Doyle, N. Grattan


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Duncannon, Viscount


Betterton, Henry B.
Chadwick, R. Burton
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Bigland, Alfred
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Rodger, A. K.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Royden, Sir Thomas


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Foreman, Henry
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lort-Wllliams, J.
Seager, Sir William


Forrest, Walter
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Seddon, J. A.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Macmaster, Donald
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Gardiner, James
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Simm, M. T.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Macquisten, F. A.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Goff, Sir R. Park
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Green, Albert (Derby)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Morrison, Hugh
Steel, Major S. Strang


Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Gregory, Holman
Mosley, Oswald
Stewart, Gershom


Greig, Colonel James William
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sturrock, J. Long


Griggs, Sir Peter
Murchison, C. K.
Sugden, W. H.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Neal, Arthur
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hailwood, Augustine
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Waddington, R.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Wallace, J.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Hills, Major John Waller
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hinds, John
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Whitla, Sir William


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Hood, Joseph
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hopkins, John W. W.
Purchase, H. G.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M.(Bethnal Gn.)


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Ramsden, G. T.
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel N.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)



Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kidd, James
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hogge, James Myles
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sitch, Charles H.


Briant, Frank
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, William
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Maclan, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tootill, Robert


Devlin, Joseph
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Redmond, Captain William Archer



Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton
Mr. Donnelly and Mr. McVeagh.


Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, IRELAND.

1.0 A.M.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,226, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, Ireland, including sundry Grants in Aid, and including the cost of certain Special Services arising out of the War.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £100.
I move this reduction in order to draw attention to the fact that the Committee
which considered the allocation of time on the Supplementary Estimates came to a bargain that they should closure discussion at eleven o'clock, but they emphasised the fact that they retained the right to vote on each item of the Supplementary Estimates as they come up. That was particularly stated by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who, unfortunately, is not here to-night. I think that the other members of the Committee were particularly emphatic on retaining that right. On the original arrangement we made for allocating
time we had arranged that the discussion on the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates should close at 7.15, so as to give a whole hour for Divisions before the next business began at 8 o'clock. Therefore, it is obvious that it was perfectly understood that we were going not only to maintain our nominal right, but to exercise the right of voting against the Estimates.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is doing what he would not intentionally do. He is challenging the action of the Chair under cover of another Motion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not desire in the least to challenge the action of the Chair What I do want to point out is that the bargain, if it is to be kept on one side, must be kept on the other as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members came to a bargain—which I think was a very wise one—to end discussion at a certain hour. They reserved the right to challenge a Division, not, of course, to challenge the right of the Chair to prevent Divisions being taken. I understand from the Leader of the House that he thinks we broke the bargain by challenging this Division.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): indicated assent.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is not so. It was specifically stated by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London, that we had not only the right, but that if we exercised the right by voting against this expenditure of money we were not breaking the bargain.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think we are in a very peculiar position, because, since the Eleven O'clock Rule was suspended, I presumed that it would not be in order, at the expense of breaking the bargain, to make such a speech as my hon. and gallant Friend has just made. I am also breaking the bargain in replying, but I think the Committee will agree with me that it would be a very unfortunate thing if, for any technical reason of any kind, some strong disagreement and outburst of feeling in the Committee should occur in regard to the Standing Order. Personally, I would far rather go through the inconvenience of voting on every Vote than of having
that. May I say that I quite assume, though the letter of the bargain is not kept, in my opinion, if Divisions are taken when there is no strong objection to the individual Vote, but merely because it is a Vote, in my view, that is also against the spirit of the bargain. I understand that the object of my right hon. Friend, the Member of the City of London, who, if he were here, could explain his own method, was not that there should be a vote on the whole 50 Votes then on the Paper, but that there should be an opportunity of challenging any individual Vote in regard to which Members felt strongly. That, certainly, was my understanding, but I do think it would be a great pity that there should be any feeling at all on this, the first occasion on which we are trying to carry out by agreement what has hitherto been carried out by coercion, more or less. I am quite certain that the Committee as a whole, and, I believe, the hon. Gentlemen opposite, will recognise the spirit, as well as the letter, of this, and try to meet the sense of the Committee in the further Divisions.

Mr. BRACE: I do not know whether I am in Order in saying that we much appreciate your courage, Mr. Whitley, in meeting us in the way you have. But I am sure that I am speaking the desire of my colleagues when I say that we have no wish at all to place any inconvenience upon the Committee in connection with these Votes. With regard to the Votes that are unimportant, I would ask my colleagues to agree to allow them to go without a Division, but if they are important Votes involving large sums of money, I feel that we must have an opportunity of placing upon record our opposition by a vote, because we cannot place on record our opposition by a speech.

Mr. MacVEAGH: That is a very important matter. It is very easy for hon. Members, who have had no Parliamentary experience, and who are comparatively new to Parliamentary procedure, to come in and interrupt the proceedings, to shout and to get angry at being kept out of bed. When they have been a little longer in the House of Commons—if many of them do remain long—they will understand the enormous constitutional importance of the question which has aroused all the heat to-night That question is
whether money is not only to be voted without discussion, but that Divisions can be excused when the Question is put. It is so important that I think we are entitled, before any arrangement is made with the Leader of the House, to ask him for a clear statement of how he stands upon this question. Does he intend to take advantage of the ruling given to-night as a precedent?

The CHAIRMAN: I must protest against that. The Chairman is not in the least under the, authority or influence of the Leader of the House. He is appointed to this Chair by this House itself. He is the servant of the House.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I had no intention whatever, Mr. Whitley, of suggesting anything else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh!"] I think hon. Members might be mannerly at least. You, Mr. Whitley, know perfectly well that there was no intention upon my part even to suggest that you were acting in obedience to the wishes of the Leader of the House. I am certain you were not, and no such suggestion ever entered my head or fell from my lips. But this is a most important precedent. It is creating a precedent to-night. It is something that has never happened before in the whole history of the British Parliament, and we ought to know from the Leader of the House to-night that it is not going to happen again so far as he is concerned, and that he will take care that the Standing Order conferring such discretion upon the Chairman of Committees is amended.

HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

The CHAIRMAN: That cannot be argued in this way upon the Vote.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I am only suggesting this, Mr. Whitley, with the object of restoring harmony. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] All right; go on with the fighting, if you like. I am quite ready to fight it out. I am just as well prepared to sit up all night as the hon. Gentlemen who interrupted. I therefore would like this point made perfectly clear. Where does the Leader of the House stand in this? I think that we ought to have a statement from him. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I repeat that we ought to have a statement from the Leader of the House as to the view he takes of the constitutional principles involved. If he will tell the Committee
where he stands and where the Government stand on a question such as this, he will do a great deal to case the situation to-night. We are entitled to have an understanding on this.

Mr. HOGGE: I do not complain of the ruling of the Chair, whether that ruling is for us or against us. Anybody who has served in this House for a considerable time takes the luck, and regards it as part of the game which we say is sometimes played here. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a game."] I have heard some hon. Members say exactly the same thing as I have said. We are not voting on the merits, but we are voting as a protest against money being put through in so short a time. The question arises whether we are breaking faith. If hon. Members will look in the OFFICIAL REPORT at the report presented by the Junior Member for the City of London they will see that one thing that was reserved was the right that each Vote should be put separately at Eleven o'clock in order that if there were any point in connection with that Vote it could be discussed, assuming the Rule did not stand. We know that after eleven o'clock we cannot speak either on the merits or the demerits of the Vote, but we can record a protest. It is very difficult, as my right hon. Friend will agree, at once, with sixty Votes to make a selection and say you are going to vote for certain Votes. That is very mechanical. I do not think we are breaking faith in doing what we have done. I do not think we want to continue it or unduly prolong it. We have no desire to do that as long as we have established the fact that it is an unwise thing for any Government to curtail, if they can possibly avoid it, the fullest opportunity for discussing these Votes. That is the general point, and if my right hon. Friend considers, I think he will agree that we have not broken faith, but that we have tried to preserve the principle to put each Vote separately.

Mr. BONAR LAW: "Put!"

Mr. HOGGE: If we have preserved that right for the House of Commons, it is worth while doing it, even if it has taken all this time.

Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no doubt that in speaking now, as in the case of others who have spoken, I am breaking
the bargain. But I quite agree that it is worth while doing that if we are preserving the spirit of the agreement, and if the result is to have a more harmonious feeling than would have been the case if we had gone the other way. As regards what was said by the hon. Member, it would really be almost impertinent for me to express any view of the new use that is made of the Standing Order. He asked me to express my opinion of the way in which the Standing Order has been administered. Obviously it is not the occasion on which I would be justified, from the point of Order, in saying it, though I should have great hesitation in saying it because I think praise of the Chair is almost as bad as the other thing. But, in my opinion, I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite. Your, Sir, have shown the wisdom and discretion which we are accustomed from you in not pressing the view which you took with regard to the Standing Order. I feel that strongly, and I am sure the whole House feels and would be glad to show to you that we appreciate the way in which you have acted by our further action to-night. I am sorry if I am thought to have accused any hon. Members of a breach of faith. I did not intend that, but I do say that I put a different interpretation on what was intended My view was that the desire was to reserve the right to have a Division on every Vote, but without the intention of exercising it. Now the hon. Member has made his protest against the wicked Government to which we are accustomed, and I am very glad to receive the assurance from him—and I hope it will be adopted by the other hon. Members—I was going to say "his followers," but that would be wrong. But I hope that it will be agreed by those who are acting with him to-night that the full effect of the protest has been achieved and that we can now, in the most amicable spirit, end the Debate.

Mr. DEVLIN: As one who is not a follower of the right hon. Gentleman—the only time I follow him is when the Government think he is wrong—I desire to say that to me the most vital question that arises in connection with this discussion is this. If there is a call for a Division and you refuse to allow that Division, and you call upon hon. Members to stand up, I want to know will
it be recorded in the official records of the House in what way those hon. Members have voted, for and against? I think that is the really important matter to the Members themselves. It is vital to the Members themselves and to their Constituencies, because, if the Chairman of Committees or Mr. Speaker, in the exercise of his discretion, decides that no Division shall be taken, that Members of the House should have the right that it should be stated in the records of the House how they have voted upon a financial question. That is the more important because this is a most extraordinary procedure by which millions of money is being voted without discussion, and not only being voted without discussion, but being voted in accordance with the decision that you have given without Members having the right to go into the Lobby one way or another. I do not know anything about these bargains made by the hon. Gentleman, who does not lead me, or the right hon. Gentleman who leads the hon. Gentleman behind him.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It was a very delicate operation, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that although the number of his party is small I should not have consented to it if I had not secured the concurrence of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who, I thought, spoke for his party.

Mr. DEVLIN: I join with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that when we get into a controversy with the Chair, and especially with you, Mr. Whitley, it is not because we have not the highest respect for your impartiality and courtesy. But this is a matter beyond the question of impartiality and courtesy. It is a question of the fundamental right of the men elected to this House to discharge their duties to their constituents. While I am not dissenting from the arrangement in the slightest, I understand that those who made that agreement are not agreed as to what the agreement actually was. According to the hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Opposition Bench, whose constituency I forget—I would describe him as the hon. Gentleman who leads other hon. Gentlemen—even he and the right hon. Gentleman are agreed that we ought to be allowed to take a vote, and to have a
Division called on all these votes. I would like, Mr. Whitley, to have your decision on that point.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Before you decide, Sir, might I ask for a clear understanding on another point? I think you quite understand that it is not from any desire to go back on the question of your ruling in any way, but we have not heard the Leader of the House. I would like to know whether the principle that this House, on money Votes—I am not talking about ordinary Divisions—whether the Leader of the House accepts on behalf of the Government the principle that any minority, however small, should have the right to challenge a Division?

The CHAIRMAN: I think I must make it clear that what the Standing Order does is to establish an alternative form of Division. The question is put; two minutes are left, and according to the Standing Order an alternative form of Division is provided for there. I was asked about the recording of the names. That was in the Standing Order as it stood up to a, year ago; but these words were deliberately—by the Act of the House—removed from the Standing Order. That is how the matter stands.

Mr. HINDS: I think I was the second Member who was appointed on this Committee. It was distinctly understood on this Committee that any Member had the right to challenge, any Vote that was put down and that every group of Members had the right to vote against the Vote.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme desire to press his Amendment?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY, (IRELAND).

Motion made, and Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,868, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 37.

Division No. 51.]
AYES.
[1.26 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Alnsworth, Captain Charles
Courthope, Major George L.
Hilder, Lieut-Colonel Frank


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Hills, Major John waller


Atkey, A. R.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hinds, John


Baird, John Lawrence
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Baldwin, Stanley
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hood, Joseph


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dean, Lieut-Commander P. T.
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)


Barker, Major Robert H.
Dewhurst, Lieut-Commander Harry
Hopkins, John W. W.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Duncannon, Viscount
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Barnston, Major Harry
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
James, Lieut. Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bell, Lieut-Col. W. C. H (Devizes)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Jephcott, A. R.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Betterton, Henry B.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Bigland, Alfred
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Kidd, James


Boles, Lieut.-colonel D. F.
Foreman, Henry
King, Commander Henry Douglas


Borwick, Major G. O.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lane-Fox, G. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Forrest, Walter
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
France, Gerald Ashburner
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Britton, G. B.
Gardiner, James
Lewis, T. A. (Giant., Pontypridd)


Brown, Captain D. C
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lort-Williams, J.


Bruton, Sir James
Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Goff, Sir R. Park
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Macmaster, Donald


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Macquisten, F. A.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Gregory, Holman
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Casey, T. W.
Greig, Colonel James William
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Griggs, Sir peter
Morrison, Hugh.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Clough, Robert
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Mosley, Oswald


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murchison, C. K.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hailwood, Augustine
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hall, Lieut-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Neal, Arthur


Cope, Major Wm.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Royden, Sir Thomas
Townley, Maximilian G.


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Turton, E. R.


Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Waddington, R.


Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Seager, Sir William
Wallace, J.


Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Seddon, J. A.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Simm, M. T.
Whitla, Sir William


Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Pulley, Charles Thornton
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Purchase, H. G.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Ramsden, G. T.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Raw, Lieut.-Colonel N.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Stewart, Gershom
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Sturrock, J. Leng
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Sugden, W. H.
Younger, Sir George


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)



Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Strettord)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rodger, A. K.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley


Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Ward.


Rounded, Colonel R. F.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hogge, James Myles
Sitch, Charles H.


Briant, Frank
Holmes, J. Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lieut. - Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Devlin, Joseph
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Donnelly, P.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.
Mr. MacVeagh and Captain Red-mond.


Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton



Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James



Original Question put, and agreed to.

LAW CHARGES.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department: the Salaries

and Expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator General, and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Dictor of Public Prosecution; for the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 37.

Division No. 52.]
AYES.
[1.35 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Casey, T. W.
Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Goff, Sir R. Park


Atkey, A. R.
Chadwick, R. Burton
Green, Albert (Derby)


Baird, John Lawrence
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Baldwin, Stanley
Clough, Robert
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gregory, Holman


Barker, Major Robert H.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Greig, Colonel James William


Barlow, Sir Montague
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Barnett, Major R. W.
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')


Barnston, Major Harry
Courthorpe, Major George L.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Curzon, Commander viscount
Hailwood, Augustine


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Bigland, Alfred
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Duncannon, Viscount
Hills, Major John Waller


Borwick, Major G. O.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hinds, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Breese, Major Charles E.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Farquharson, Major. A. C.
Hopkins, John W. W.


Britton, G. B.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Bruton, Sir James
Foreman, Henry
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Forrest, Walter
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Jephcott, A. R.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
France, Gerald Ashburner
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Gardiner, James
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Kenyon, Barnet
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Sugden, W. H.


King, Commander Henry Douglas
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Purchase, H. G.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lort-Williams, J.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Macmaster, Donald
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Turton, E. H.


M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Waddington, R.


Macquisten, F. A.
Rodger, A. K.
Wallace, J.


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Morrison, Hugh
Royden, Sir Thomas
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Mosley, Oswald
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Whitla, Sir William


Murchison, C. K.
Seager, Sir William
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Seddon, J. A.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Neal, Arthur
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Simm, M. T.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Steel, Major S. Strang
Younger, Sir George


Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.



Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Stewart, Gershom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Sturrock, J. Leng
Commander Eyres-Monsell and Mr. Towyn Jones.


NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hogge, James Myles
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Briant, Frank
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tootill, Robert


Devlin, Joseph
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Donnelly, P.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Redmond, Captain William Archer
Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Tyson Wilson.


Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.



Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton

LAND REGISTRY.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £19,406, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Trustee.

PRISONS, ENGLAND AND THE COLONIES.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid of certain Expenses connected with Discharged Prisoners.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS, GRISAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £48,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st'day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Inspector of Reformatories, and for the Expense of the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatories, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools, and in Places of Detention under the Children Act, in Great Britain.

REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in His Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh.

COUNTY COURT OFFICERS, &c, IRELAND.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,990, be granted to His Majesty,
to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS, IRELAND.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of Reformatory and industrial Schools in Ireland.

DUNDRUM CRIMINAL LUNATIC AYSYLUM, IRELAND.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland,

BRITISH MUSEUM.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £39,793, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and other Expenses of the British Museum, and of the Natural History Museum, including certain Grants in Aid.

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, ETC.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for sundry Grants in Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants.

PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £371,194, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland.

NATIONAL GALLERY OF IRELAND.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery of Ireland.

SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £210,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate, and Additional Allowances, and gratuities under sundry Statutes, for Compassionate Allowances, Gratuities, and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Treasury, and for the Salaries of Medical Referees.

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,146, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain."'

MISSION OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE OF WALES TO AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, ETC.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for a Grant in Aid of the Mission of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to Australia, New Zealand, etc.

EMERGENCY SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £530,500, be-granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of certain Emergency Services arising out of the Railway Strike.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 3G.

Division No. 53.]
AYES.
[1.48 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barnston, Major Harry
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Breese, Major Charles E.


Baird, John Lawrence
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Brittain, Sir Harry


Baldwin, Stanley
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Britton, G. B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Brown, Captain O. C.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Betterton, Henry B.
Bruton, Sir James


Barlow, Sir Montague
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Borwick, Major G. O.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel N.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Casey, T. W.
Hinds, John
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rodger, A. K.


Clough, Robert
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hunter, General Sir A (Lancaster)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Royden, Sir Thomas


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cope, Major Wm.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Seager, Sir William


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Seddon, J. A.


Courthope, Major George L.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Kenyon, Barnet
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kidd, James
Simm, M. T.


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lane-Fax, G. R.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Duncannon, Viscount
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Stewart, Gershom


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lort-Williams, J.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachie)
Sugden, W. H.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Macmaster, Donald
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Foreman, Henry
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Morrison, Hugh
Turton, E. R.


Forrest, Walter
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wallace, J.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mosley, Oswald
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Murchison, C. K.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Gardiner, James
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Whitla, Sir William


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Neat, Arthur
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Green, Albert (Derby)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M.(Bethnal Gn.)


Gregory, Holman
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Greig, Colonel James William
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Younger, Sir George


Hailwood, Augustine
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.



Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Mr. Dudley Ward and Lord E. Talbot.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Purchase, H. G.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Briant, Frank
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Devlin, Joseph
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Tootill, Robert


Donnelly, P.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Redmond, Captain William Archer



Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Hogge.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the payment of Old Age Pensions in the United Kingdom, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for certain Special Charges arising out of the War, including additional allowances to Old Age Pensioners.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE JOINT COMMITTEE.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £88,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee (including Sundry Grants in Aid).

SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Expenses in respect of advances under The Housing Act, 1914, sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1918, certain Grants in Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (CIVIL DEMOBILISATION AND RESETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT).

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,085,000, He granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of

Civil Demobilisation and Resettlement of the Ministry of Labour, including Out-of-Work Donation and the Contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and Repayments to Asociations pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the National Insurance (Part 11.) (Munition Workers) Act, 1916, and Grants for the training of Demobilised Officers."

COAL MINES DEFICIENCY.

Motion made, and Question put,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £5,802,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, to meet the deficiency arising under the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, and the cost of carrying out the recommendations contained in the Interim Report of the Chairman of the Coal Industry Commission, dated 20th March, 1919, and for kindred purposes.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 36.

Division No. 54.]
AYES.
[1.58 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Farquharson, Major A. C.
M 'Micking, Major Gilbert


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Macquisten, F. A.


Baldwin, Stanley
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foreman, Henry
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Morrison, Hugh


Barlow, Sir Montague
Forrest, Walter
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mosley, Oswald


Barnston, Major Harry
France, Gerald Ashburner
Murchison, C. K.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Gardiner, James
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Neal, Arthur


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Betterton, Henry B.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bigland, Alfred
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Gregory, Holman
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Greig, Colonel James William
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Breese, Major Charles E.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Oxbridge, Mddx.)


Britton, G. B.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emit W.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hailwood, Augustine
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Bruton, Sir James
Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Purchase, H. G.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Casey, T. W.
Hinds, John
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rodger, A. K.


Clough, Robert
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Royden, Sir Thomas


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
James, Lieut. Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cope, Major Wm.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Seager, Sir William


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Seddon, J. A.


Courthope, Major George L.
Kenyon, Barnet
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Kidd, James
Simm, M. T.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Duncannon, viscount
Lort-Williams, J.
Stewart, Gershom


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Sugden, W. H.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Macmaster, Donald
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'str)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. O. (Southport)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Whitla, Sir William
Younger, Sir George


Thomson, Sir W Mitchell- (Maryhili)
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson



Townley, Maximilian G.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Turton, E. R.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Commander Eyres-Monsell and Mr.


Wallace, J.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Towyn Jones.


Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hogge, James Myles
Sexton, James


Briant, Frank
Holmes, J. Stanley
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lunn, William
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Donnelly, P.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Tootill, Robert


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hartshorn, Vernon
Redmond, Captain William Archer
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.
Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Tyson Wilson.

EXPORT CREDITS.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That a sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during

the year ending on the 31st day of March 1920, to provide for Advances to British Importers."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 38.

Division No. 55.]
AYES.
[2.5 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Macmaster, Donald


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Falcon, Captain Michael
Macquisten, F. A.


Baird, John Lawrence
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Baldwin, Stanley
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Morrison, Hugh


Barker, Major Robert H.
Foreman, Henry
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Forestier-Walker, L.
Mosley, Oswald


Elarnett, Major R. W.
Forrest, Walter
Murchison, C. K.


Barnston, Major Harry
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Neal, Arthur


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Green, Albert (Derby)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Betterton, Henry B.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Bigland, Alfred
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Gregory, Holman
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Greig, Colonel James William
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hn. F. E. (Dorset E.)
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Oxbridge, Mddx.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hailwood, Augustine
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Britton, G. B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bruton, Sir James
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Purchase, H. G.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel N.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hills, Major John Waller
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hinds, John
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Casey, T. W.
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Hopkins, John W. W.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rodger, A. K.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hunter, General Sir A (Lancaster)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Clough, Robert
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Roundel), Colonel R. F.


Coats, Sir Stuart
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Royden, Sir Thomas


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jephcott, A. R.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cope, Major Wm.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Seager, Sir William


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Kenyon, Barnet
Seddon, J. A.


Courthope, Major George L.
Kidd, James
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Simm, M. T.


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lort-Williams, J.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Duncannon, Viscount
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Stewart, Gershom
Wallace, J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Sugden, W. H.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Whitla, Sir William
Younger, Sir George


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson



Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Townley, Maximilian G.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Commander Eyres-Monsell and Mr.


Turton, E. R.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Towyn Jones.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hogge, James Myles
Sitch, Charles H.


Briant, Frank
Holmes, J. Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, William
Lunn, William
Sturrock, J. Leng


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Tootill, Robert


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Or. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Redmond, Captain William Archer



Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton
Mr. W. Thorne and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.


Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James



Question put, and agreed to.

WAR BONUS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £680,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1920, for such of the Charges for War Bonus, &c, as have not been otherwise provided.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,115,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs and Excise

£



Vote 3.
Medical Establishments and Services
20,000



Vote 5.
Educational Services
16,000



Vote 8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:—





Section I. Personnel
355,000




Section III. Contract Work
5,366,000



Vote 11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
2,383,000



Vote 12.
Admiralty Office
106,000



Vote 14.
Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances
228,000



Vote 15.
Civil Superannuation Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities
81,000






8,555,000


Less Surpluses on:—


Vote 1.
Wages, &c, of Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, Royal Marines, Women's Royal Naval Service, and Mercantile Officers and Men
812,000



Vote 2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
462,000



Vote 6.
Scientific Services
104,000



Vote 8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:—





Section II. Materiel
6,269,000



Vote 9.
Naval Armaments and Aviation
798,000



Vote 10.
Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad
109,990






8,554,990




Net Amount
£ 10"

Departments and certain special Charges arising out of the War."

POST OFFICE.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including telegraphs and telephones.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1919–20.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for additional expenditure on the following Navy Services, namely:—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Might I inquire, Mr. Whitley, what is this Vote? It is not printed in the Supplementary Estimates.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not a Vote for the Civil Service.

It being after Eleven of the Clock on Wednesday evening, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow,

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock on Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTYSPEAKER adjourned the Home without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a Quarter after Two o'clock.